Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

THE KING'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS).

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. F. C. Thomson) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Loyal and Dutiful Address as followeth:

I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

ST. MARY STEAMSHIP COMPANY.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now received any Report from the Public Prosecutor regarding the affairs of the St. Mary Steamship Company; and, if so, will he inform the House what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The matter is one for the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has caused some inquiry to he made locally and has received information but not sufficient at present to enable a decision to be arrived at.

Mr. JONES: Am I to understand that the Department have no powers until the Public Prosecutor is satisfied?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The point is, that the President of the Board of Trade cannot he satisfied until the Public Prosecutor has obtained all the information which is necessary.

Mr. JONES: Then I understand that he hats not yet completed the inquiry. If I put a question on the Paper three weeks hence will that do?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I will do my best to give an answer.

LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "VESTRIS."

The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:
5. To ask the President of the Board of Trade what form of inquiry will be held into the loss of the s.s. 'Vestris'; whether the adequacy of the lifeboats and the arrangements for lowering them will be particularly examined into; and whether he can now give the probable cause of the sinking and of the loss of life.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I put this question on the Paper before certain aspersions were cast on the officers and crew of the "Vestris." I dissociate myself from those aspersions.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The form of the inquiry into the loss of the "Vestris" is not yet decided, but of course it will cover all material points, including those mentioned in the question. This being so, I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will realise that it would not be possible for the Board of Trade at this stage to attempt to express any opinion as to the probable cause or causes of the loss.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What action did the Department take when the Inquiry was ordered in New York, prior to the appointment of a British nautical assessor by the Board of Trade? Did the Board of Trade take any steps through our Consul-General to be represented at the Inquiry, particularly with a view to defending the reputation of the dead Captain?

Mr. WILLIAMS: A. cablegram was sent at the earliest possible moment to our Consul-General in New York, giving him appropriate instructions.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What were those instructions? Were they to the effect that the Board of Trade should be directly represented at the Inquiry, particularly for the purpose of defending the officers and crew?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I would point out that our position in relation to a foreign tribunal is not one that is entirely easy, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will not press me unduly.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is not the holding of the Inquiry in New York likely to prejudice any Inquiry which may be held here later?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Clearly, I cannot properly answer a question like that. We have no control over the Government of the United States. We can only take the appropriate action open to us.

Mr. MACLEAN: Was not the ship registered here?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes.

Mr. MACLEAN: Then ought not the Inquiry to have been held here first?

Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade been able to gather from the reports of the New York Inquiry whether State Attorney Tuttle was the President of the Court or the Prosecutor? Have representations been made to ensure that the good names of British sailors are protected?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the scope of the Inquiry will cover the efficiency or otherwise of the wireless service?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Quite clearly, the Inquiry must cover everything that is pertinent to the cause of the disaster.

Mr. HAYES: Is there any real status in regard to the Court now sitting, for the legal representation of British mercantile interests?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I should not like to answer that question without notice. My recollection of previous Inquiries is that whatever legal assistance was necessary was provided.

Mr. HAYES: Have instructions to that effect been given?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The form of the Inquiry has not yet been settled. No
Tribunal has yet been set up, and none of the witnesses are at this moment in this country.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Is it not a fact that any British vessel carrying passengers out of United States ports is bound to have a certificate from the United States stating that she is fit and seaworthy?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Broadly speaking, every foreign country issues passenger certificates for ships which are carrying passengers from ports of that particular country, except that in some cases where ships are coming here they may recognise our passenger certificate.

FOG (SOUND APPARATUS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to cases of inefficient sound apparatus carried in many steamships for the purpose of giving the authorised warning signals in fog under the international regulations for the prevention of collisions at sea; what steps are taken to inspect and test this apparatus; and, in the case of foreign ships, whether any international action is possible where the apparatus is known to be defective or inefficient?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: A general complaint as to the inefficiency of whistles on some ships was received by the Board of Trade from a shipmaster a short time ago, but as particulars were not given, it was not possible to say how much foundation there was for the complaint. On passenger ships the sound signal apparatus is inspected every year. In the case of cargo ships it is inspected at the time of registration and afterwards as opportunities occur, or when there is any reason to think the apparatus may he defective. All foreign ships in British ports are subject to inspection like British ships, and compliance with the requirements of the international collision regulations can be secured either by reference to the proper national authority, or, if this should be necessary, by detention.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Member look into the question of a more frequent inspection,
especially of cargo vessels, and, also regular inspection of their sound apparatus?

Mr. WILLIAMS: There is some difficulty in that respect, because cargo vessels may be absent from this country for very considerable periods.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Can the hon. Member say whether there has been any increase in inspectors in the last four years? There was a move to increase the number.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I must ask for notice of that question.

STEAMSHIP "EDINBURGH CASTLE" (SEAMEN'S WAGES).

Mr. SHORT: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that although under the Merchant Shipping Acts seamen disputing deductions from wages are entitled to sign Form of Release M, certain seamen on discharge from the steamship "Edinburgh Castle" at Southampton last week were refused such forms; and will he instruct Board of Trade superintendents to issue Form M in all such cases?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am informed that when the crew of the "Edinburgh Castle" were discharged at Southampton on the 12th November, none of the crew asked for facilities to sign the release on Form M. If any seaman had wished to reserve a claim against the owners or master he would have been permitted to sign on Form M. Board of Trade Superintendents have standing instructions that this is to be done in such cases, and no further instructions on the subject are necessary.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Have any steps been taken to inform the sailors that they have these facilities?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I think every sailor is perfectly familiar with the fact.

SAFETY REGULATIONS.

Captain GARRO-JONES: asked the President of the Board of Trade who is responsible for carrying out inspections and for the enforcement of Board of Trade rules in respect of British ships sailing between foreign ports?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Consuls at foreign ports have limited powers for securing compliance with the Merchant Shipping Acts, and can generally arrange for a ship to be surveyed where this is necessary or summon a Naval Court to deal with a specific complaint, but they have no technical staff and do not make regular inspections. Where inspections take place they are generally made by surveyors of the classification societies or similar bodies or by officers appointed for the purpose by foreign Governments.

Captain GARRO-JONES: In view of the inadequacy of the powers which are possessed by Consular officials, will the Parliamentary Secretary take steps to improve the law in this respect, so that it shall be the duty of British Consular officials, or other foreign officials to see that the Board of Trade regulations are put into force on ships sailing into foreign ports?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Regulations with regard to ships leaving foreign ports are imposed by the legislation of the foreign Government itself, and I ask the hon. and gallant Member to realise that we cannot enforce British laws quite freely in other countries, however desirable it may be to do so.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: Is it not the case that Lloyds Register has a surveyor in every important port in the world and that such surveyor has perfect liberty to go on board all ships registered at Lloyds in any port in the world?

Mr. WILLIAMS: That, obviously, is the case, and the Classification Society has rendered valuable services by the inspections that they are constantly making.

Captain GARRO-JONES: In view of the fact that the Board of Trade has powers over foreign vessels sailing from British ports, may I ask whether foreign countries have full power over British vessels sailing from foreign ports, and whether these powers were exercised in the case of the steamship "Vestris"?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Broadly speaking, every country is presumed to enforce its own laws, and as far as I know the United States enforced its own laws in this case.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: May I ask whether steps can be taken by which the
captains of British ships must submit their papers to the Consul in a foreign port? A case occurred some years ago in which the Board of Trade instructed a British captain that he need not submit his papers to the British Consul.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I must have notice of that question.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether tests as to the efficiency of boats on ocean-going liners are carried out prior to each voyage; and whether ocean-going liners are expected to carry sufficient boats, apart from rafts, etc., to accommodate, in case of need, all the passengers and the crew?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: All passenger vessels trading to or from ports in the United Kingdom are thoroughly surveyed at least once a year by Board of Trade surveyors, and ocean-going vessels carrying large numbers of third-class passengers undergo a further survey before the beginning of each voyage from the United Kingdom. All the British ocean-going liners trading from this country carry boats for all, and, in addition, rafts for 25 per cent. of the persons on board.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the hon. Gentleman's Department satisfied that the boats on passenger liners are all inspected before each voyage?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am not certain that the boats on passengers liners are all inspected before each voyage.

Mr. SHINWELL: If the Parliamentary Secretary is not satisfied that a regular and efficient inspection of such boats takes place, will he take steps to see that such inspection is carried out in future?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The question refers to the efficiency of boats on passenger vessels and not necessarily to any particular item of the equipment of such vessels.

Mr. HAYES: May I ask whether the Department is becoming disturbed by the frequent complaints of overloading?

Mr. WILLIAMS: That point does not arise out of the question. I do not accept the suggestion as true.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the hon. Member take it from me—[HON. MEMBERS "No!"]—that these boats are not properly inspected?

Sir R. THOMAS: Is it not the case that every passenger liner has boat drill during every voyage—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]and that the boats are put into the water during the voyage? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Sir W. de FRECE: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the inspectors of his Department have any responsibility for the proper storage of cargo below decks; and, if so, of what nature?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The responsibility for the proper stowage of the cargo rests on the persons concerned in sending the ship to sea. The Board of Trade surveyors do not intervene unless there is reason to think that a ship is improperly loaded and cannot go to sea without serious danger to life.

Mr. HAYES: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how many complaints have been received this year?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Not off-hand.

Mr. HAYES: Is he satisfied that the complaints are more numerous?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have not had my personal attention drawn to any.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any guarantee that the cargo is properly stored away and tightened up before the vessel leaves?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The primary responsibility is laid quite properly on the master of the ship. His own life is at stake, and he is therefore likely to be much more careful than anyone else.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Have we not up to the moment been accustomed to trust the mercantile marine?

Mr. B. SMITH: May I ask whether any limitation is placed on deck cargo, and whether any inspection is made to see that the regulations are carried out?

Sir W. de FRECE: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether pasenger life-saving drill is prescribed on each voyage of all ocean-going steamers; and how often the crews of such boats are trained in boat lowering?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Although there is at present no power to require boat drill to be carried out on passenger ships, standard regulations on the subject were drawn up some time ago by the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, on which all the shipping interests are represented, and these are in substance followed on all ocean-going passenger vessels, although the details vary in different lines and in different trades. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the standard regulations.

Sir W. de FRECE: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that the life-belts provided on these liners are inspected at the same time as the boats?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I should imagine that they are not examined in detail. They are all of an approved pattern.

Mr. SHINWELL: Should not the recommendations of this important advisory committee in respect of life-boat drill be made compulsory?

Mr. HURD: Is it not within the knowledge of the Parliamentary Secretary that there are certain lines on which boat drill for passengers does not take place until the voyage is nearly over?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The question does not refer to boat drill by passengers, but to what is more important, boat drill by the crew. On some ships, there are no arrangements, deliberately, for boat drill by passengers, because the companies prefer to assemble the passengers at stated points rather than opposite the boats, because some of the boats may happen to be damaged and not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIA.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed unanimously at a meeting of the fish trade at Yarmouth, on Saturday, 10th November, to the effect that no substantial or permanent improvement in the industry could be secured except by the reopening of the Russian market, and demanding that the British Government take steps to facilitate trading relationships with Russia; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 14th November to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have seen the answer. Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in the past we have done a pretty considerable business with these people and that the organisation with which I am connected has done a great deal of business without, losing money? Cannot outside trade be encouraged by means of credit, and create a better market for British fisheries?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I think that raises a point which was dealt with in the Debate yesterday.

IRON AND STEEL TRADES.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to a better understanding of the economic condition of the iron and steel industries, he will cause a memorandum to be compiled and circulated giving authoritative statistics as to production, imports and exports, prices, costs, and employment in those industries?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: A very thorough memorandum on the iron and steel industry, including particulars of production, imports and exports, and numbers employed over a period of years, with some discussion of prices and costs, is included in the "Survey of Metal Industries" published this year by the Committee on Industry and Trade. Moreover, the more important figures relating to the industry are regularly published in the Annual Reports and Monthly Bulletins of the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers. In these circumstances, I do not think that a further memorandum is necessary at the present time.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not possible to bring these figures up to date?

Mr. WILLIAMS: These figures are published monthly by the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers, and the figures are never more than a few days out of date. The figures in the document published by the Committee on Industrial Trade are also comparatively recent.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Is it not a fact that those figures show rapidly decreasing imports of iron and steel into this country and an increasing production of iron and steel in this country?

ARTIFICIAL SILK FABRICS (IMPORT DUTY, CANADA).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to make any representation to the Government of Canada respecting its proposal to impose a special duty of 9d. per lb. on artificial silk fabrics entering Canada from Great Britain?

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have asked His Majesty's Senior Trade Commissioner in Canada to obtain some further information as to the manner in which it is intended to carry out this proposal.

MOTOR CAR INDUSTRY.

Sir JOHN POWER: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how the present rate of production of motor cars compares with the rate in the period in 1924 and 1925, when the import duty was not in operation?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Figures relating to the production of motor cars in this country during the period in 1924 and 1925, when the import duty was not in operation, are not available. According to estimates of production for calendar years published by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (which do not include cars assembled in this country from imported parts), the output of motor cars and chassis in 1927 exceeded the average annual output during 1924 and 1925 by about 40 per cent., commercial vehicles and their chassis being excluded, or by nearly 50 per cent. if such vehicles be included in the comparison.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Would not a comparison of the present production and the figures of 1850 show a still further increase?

Mr. A. V ALEXANDER: Has the Parliamentary Secretary the figures for 1923 with him?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am afraid I have not.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary surprised that an hon. Member on this side of the House should put such a question as that put by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson)?

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that hon. Members who have made statements in their own constituencies are entitled to express the same view on the Floor of this House?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can you, Mr. Speaker, do anything to check these differences of opinion in the Conservative party?

HERRING (BRANDING).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Fishery Board are prepared to revise their Regulations regarding the branding of crown medium herring?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The Fishery Board for Scotland see no reason at present for altering their Herring Branding Regulations, which were revised only in April last, but the matter will he kept in view and duly considered when further experience of the working of the present Regulations has been gained.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD COUNCIL (TRADERS' EVIDENCE).

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the London Flour Millers' Association has now agreed to the request of the Food Council that their accountants should be allowed to examine the books of the association; if not, what alternative information has been received by the Food Council; and whether the Food Council are now satisfied that the official prices of flour published by the London Flour Millers' Association are the actual prices charged to the trade?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Members of the London Flour Millers' Association nave undertaken to provide the information requested by the Food Council. The Council will not be able to express an opinion on the information until the returns from the millers have been considered.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Will the hon. Member answer whether the original request of the Food Council has been acceded to, and when they are to have access to the books to discover whether the actual prices of flour is that which is quoted as the current price?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The London flour millers have agreed to supply the information asked for, and that information will be extracted by the accountants. That is all that the Food Council desire.

Oral Answers to Questions — BREAD PRICES, NEWPORT.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there has been any practical result from the correspondence which has passed recently between the Food Council and the Newport Master Bakers' Association with reference to an allegation that supplies of flour had been withheld from a retailer by two milling firms because he was selling bread at 7½d. per 4 1b. loaf, a price lower than that recommended by the association?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The result has been that the Newport Master Bakers' Association have announced that, although the price of flour has advanced 4s. per sack, equivalent to ½d. per quartern on bread, the present price, 8½d., will not be advanced until a further rise in the price of flour takes place. Thus the Newport Association's price is now the same as the recognised price in London, although for over a year preceding the Food Council's recent statement in the Press, it had been from ½d. to 1½d. above the London price. In addition, the retailer referred to in the question states that he has been making increased sales in consequence of the publicity occasioned by the Food Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER (INQUIRY).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in instituting the inquiry recommended by the National Fuel and Power Committee?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Steps are being taken to appoint a committee to make this inquiry, and I hope to be able shortly to make a further statement on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

PATENT OFFICE.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the surplus of revenue over expenditure of the Patent Office in each year from 1922?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The surplus of receipts over expenditure as shown by the Annual Reports of the Comptroller-General of the Patent Office for the years 1922–27 was as follows:—1922,£74,074; 1923,£81,798; 1924, £75,203; 1925, £88,540; 1926, £98,813; 1927, £112,939.

SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH.

Mr. E. BROWN: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if any ex-service P-class officers in the Scottish Board of Health have yet been promoted to the established clerical grade; and whether, in view of his reply of 19th July last, he proposes to assign to ex-service P-class officers any of the remaining posts in that grade?

Sir JOHN GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part the question of the promotion of "P" class men to the clerical grade in the Scottish Board of Health is still under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

FILMS (PRODUCTION AND ASSISTANCE).

Mr. DAY: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War if any of the regular officers or soldiers who have been employed in making films have met with serious injuries, and will he give particulars?

Mr. PENNY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The only such cases which have been brought to my notice were connected with the production of the film "Mons" in 1926 and with the film "Balaclava" last month. In the former case, one soldier was killed and one had his right leg fractured and an eye severely injured; in the latter case, one soldier fractured a thigh bone. I am informed that in this case the invalid is progressing satisfactorily.

Mr. DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether any compensation was paid to this man?

Mr. PENNY: I could not say off-hand, but I shall bring the question to the notice of my right hon. Friend, who will give it due consideration.

Mr. DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman also bring before the Secretary of State for War the suggestion that in making contracts for the production of these films all the film companies should have the men thoroughly well insured, so that in case of a claim arising they can be guaranteed compensation?

Mr. PENNY: That suggestion will be brought before my right hon. Friend.

BANDS (POLITICAL GATHERINGS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for War, whether it is the practice of the War Office to sanction the use of military bands at political fetes and garden parties; and whether his Department granted permission for a portion of the band of the Suffolk Regiment to play at the Conservative garden party on 23rd August at Boxted Hall?

Mr. PENNY: Individual applications for the services of Army bands are not referred to the War Office but are dealt with by the regimental authorities subject to certain general rules. The general rule is that Army bands should not play at political gatherings, but I am informed that in the case to which the hon. Member refers, it was not clear when the engagement was accepted that the occasion was a political one.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that Boxted Hall is in the Division represented by the Secretary of State for War, and will he tell us why the Minister is not present to-day, so that he may answer this question?

Mr. PENNY: I regret to say that my right hon. Friend is away owing to illness. That is the reason why I have been asked to reply. Boxted Hall, as the hon. Member says, is in my right hon. Friend's constituency, but I might say that while the speeches were being made the band was taking tea.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that in all cases where military bands are permitted to attend Conservative galas, the members of the band are always at tea while speeches are being made?

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Was there a keyhole to the door of the place where the band were taking tea'?

RECRUITMENT.

Mr. WELLOCK: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War the numbers of men and boys recruited to His Majesty's Forces during each month from July, 1926, to date?

Mr. PENNY: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the number of recruits taken on the strength of the Regular Army each month since July, 1926.

Following is the table:

Number of recruits (men and boys) taken on the strength of the Regular Army each month since July 1926:


Month.


Regular Army.


July, 1926
…
…
 2,084


August, 1926
…
…
 3,107


September, 1926
…
…
 2,828


October, 1926
…
…
2,434


November, 1926
…
…
2,456


December, 1926
…
…
1,734


January, 1927
…
…
4,045


February, 1927
…
…
2,649


March, 1927
…
…
1,934


April, 1927
…
…
1,926


May, 1927
…
…
1,883


June, 1927
…
…
1,729


July, 1927
…
…
1,555


August, 1927
…
…
2,697


September, 1927
…
…
2,560


October, 1927
…
…
2,279


November, 1927
…
…
2,421


December, 1927
…
…
1,687


January, 1928
…
…
4,132


February, 1928
…
…
2,827


March, 1928
…
…
2,358


April, 1928
…
…
2,432


May, 1928
…
…
2,214


June, 1928
…
…
2,118


July, 1928
…
…
2,003


August, 1928
…
…
3,053


September, 1928
…
…
2,882


October, 1928
…
…
2,753

ESTIMATES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War what savings he anticipates in next year's Army Estimates as a result of the signing of the treaty for the renunciation of war, signed in Paris, commonly known as the Kellogg peace pact?

Mr. PENNY: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on the 24th July last to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Sir R. Thomas).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But since then has not the Pact been signed, and is there no further reply available?

Mr. PENNY: Not for the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BRITISH TROOPS).

Sir R. THOMAS: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many British troops are at present stationed in Shanghai; and what has been the cost of the occupation up to the most recent date available?

Mr. PENNY: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on the 13th instant to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Wellock). As regards the second part, the extra cost involved in the employment of additional troops in China up to the end of November, 1928, is estimated at approximately£4,250,000,

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

LAND RECLAMATION.

Mr. E. BROWN: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the recent official statement that a beginning has been made with a scheme, planned in secret, which will eventually bring about the complete reclamation of the waste places, and especially the bog lands, of Great Britain, he will say whether such a scheme has been discussed at the Scottish Office; whether the details were there given; and what conclusion was arrived at?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no knowledge of any official statement or scheme of the nature referred to in the first part of the question. The Board of Agriculture has, for some time past, been
carrying on experiments in reclamation in Dumfriesshire; and I am aware that, following on an inspection of these experiments, a generous offer of funds has been made with the object of enabling further experiments to be made in the reclamation of peatlands. The matter is under consideration but I am not in a position to make any statement at this stage.

Mr. BROWN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that the Chairman of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland did make a statement to certain selected Press men? May I send him a, copy of the report?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have seen that newspaper report, which I confess I have not, read in detail, but I do not think it can be taken that it is the official report.

NATIONAL LIBRARY.

Sir PATRICK FORD: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received representations from the Incorporation of Architects in Scotland in regard to the proposed new buildings for the Scottish National Library; and, in view of the statement made for the First Commissioner of Works on 4th July, 1928, is he prepared in this instance to invite designs for approval from architects outside Government employment?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, due consideration will, of course, be-given to the representations from the Incorporation of Architects in Scotland' when the time arrives, but in the opinion of the First Commissioner this is premature at the present time as it is improbable that the erection of the Scottish National Library can be commenced for several years.

Sir P. FORD: Is it not possible for the Government to arrive at some definite policy that would give satisfaction to the interests of Scotland?

Sir V. HENDERSON: I do not know quite what my hon. Friend means, but, if he is referring to policy in regard to this matter, we have a definite policy.

Sir P. FORD: Is it possible to disclose that policy?

Sir V. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. The site of the library is at present occupied by the Sheriff Court. That court will have to be rebuilt on another site and completed for occupation before the site is available for the library.

Sir P. FORD: What I want to know is, are the Government going to get the best possible architectural work in this building, or are they going to leave it to a Government department? I want an assurance on that point.

Sir V. HENDERSON: It is too premature yet to make a statement on the subject.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Are the Government responsible for this building?

Sir V. HENDERSON: As far as I remember, it is partly paid for by voluntary contributions, but that does not alter the statement that I have made.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is there anything to prevent the Incorporation of Architects in Scotland from submitting plans voluntarily?

Sir V. HENDERSON: Not as far as I am aware.

OSCAR SLATER (APPEAL).

Mr. DAY: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total cost and expenses in which the Government were involved in the Oscar Slater appeal?

Mr. MACLEAN: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total costs of the Government in the Oscar Slater appeal case; and if he has any information as to the total costs of Oscar Slater in the same action?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The total costs incurred by the Crown in respect of the Slater appeal amounted to£272 2s. 11d. I have no definite information as to the total costs incurred by the appellant.

Mr. DAY: Do these costs include the cost of the various American investigations?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As far as I know, the Crown did not hold any American investigation.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that investigations went on in America for many years in connection with various witnesses in this case?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does that sum include any payment either to the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General, who conducted the case for the Crown, other than that passed by this House?

Sir J. GILMOUR: With regard to the first supplementary question, if the hon. Member will put down a question on that subject I shall endeavour to answer him. As regards the second question, the Lord Advocate does not receive any fee.

Mr. DAY: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to state the precedents which influenced the Government's decision in arriving at the amount paid to Mr. Oscar Slater as an ex gratia payment for the wrongful imprisonment he endured for 18½ years; and whether, in taking into consideration these precedents, the amount of costs and expenses incurred by the persons concerned in establishing their innocence were taken into consideration?

Mr. MACLEAN: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state the precedent on which he based the amount of the ex grotia payment to Oscar Slater: what was the period of imprisonment imposed; the amount of the compensation awarded; and whether the precedent was under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Office?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In determining the amount of the payment to Mr. Slater, regard was had to previous cases where it appeared that persons who had served a period of imprisonment should not have been convicted. The Scottish Office has a record of only two previous cases where payments were made by the Exchequer in respect of wrongful convictions in Scotland. In neither of these cases were the circumstances very comparable to the Slater case. Regard was therefore had to various English cases, including the cases of Brannaghan and Murphy, who in 1888 each received a free pardon and£800 after serving nine years; Beck, who in 1904 received a free pardon in respect of two convictions and£5,000 after serving about 5½ years; Edalji, who in 1907 received a free pardon but no compensation after serving about 3½ years;
and Mrs. Gooding, whose two convictions were quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in 1921, and who received£250 after spending rather over eight months in prison. Consideration is given to all the circumstances of individual cases, including the possibility of expense having been incurred by the person concerned.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in any of these cases the prisoner was almost executed—almost went to the gallows?

Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make any inquiry into the legal costs of the appellant in having his sentence quashed, so that the House may have some definite information as to the actual sum received by him as compensation? The House will then be in a position to compare that sum with the precedents quoted by the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. I see no reason to take that course. The compensation which was given was given to cover all the circumstances and was so accepted.

Mr. MACLEAN: How can the right hon. Gentleman intimate to this House that it was given after taking all the circumstances into consideration, when he admits that he does not know what were the legal costs of the appellant? Is it not an important point in the consideration of the amount of compensation to be determined? Compensation is surely not payment for expenses incurred?

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that a Supplementary Estimate will shortly come before the House in Committee, and that would be the proper time at which to debate this subject.

Mr. MACLEAN: In order that the House may be in a position to judge the Supplementary Estimate and debate it with all the facts before them, is it not necessary that the costs of the appellant should be made known to the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is probably so, but I felt that the hon. Member in his Supplementary Question was going rather beyond that point.

Mr. WELLOCK: Arising out of the precedents mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, if they are to be taken into
consideration, will he also consider the fact that£5,000 in 1904 is to be regarded as something like£8,000 to-day?

Mr. B. SMITH: In regard to the precedents quoted, can the right hon. Gentleman also say whether in any of these cases expenses had to be incurred on anything like the scale involved in the Slater case?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, in judging of these matters, there is a certain element of knowledge in the Department of what the ordinary run of costs may be in particular cases. Naturally, all these things are taken into consideration, but this payment must not be taken as being divided into heads and sub-heads. It is a lump sum paid to cover all the circumstances.

Mr. DAY: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had the facts for which he asked.

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS (EX GRATIA PAYMENTS).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give, for the last 25 years, the number of cases in Scotland in which a convicted person has been released after serving a portion of the sentence owing to its being ascertained that the conviction was wrong, and in each case the term of conviction, the portion served, and the amount of any ex gratia payment made; whether in any case it was, or was not, specified that a part of such payment was for legal or other expenses incurred by the convict or his friends in securing his release, and the general principles upon which the amount of ex gratia payments is arrived?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the reply is long and involves some figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the number of cases; and can he state whether in any case anything has been specified as to the costs incurred; and what are the general principles on which the ex gratia payment, are made?

Sir J. GILMOUR: If the hon. Member waits until he has the reply in his hands, I think he will find that it deals with all the points set out in the question.

Following is the reply:

During the last twenty-five years three persons have served period of imprisonment and have subsequently been granted Free Pardons in respect of wrongful convictions in Scotland. The sentences and, other particulars are as follow:—


Sentence.
Length of Detention served.
Payment made


12 months
…
5¾ months
…
None.


21 days
…
21 days
…
£50


60 days
…
26 days
…
None.

In addition, there has been one case, apart from that of Mr. Slater, where a payment was made by the Exchequer to a person who served a period of imprisonment and whose conviction was subsequently quashed on appeal. The sentence in this case was 30 clays, which was served in full, £250 being paid as an act of grace.

In one of the two cases where a payment was made it was not specified that part of such payment was in respect of expenses incurred in getting the conviction set aside; in the other case no such expenses were incurred, but the letter intimating the payment contained a general intimation that it was made in full settlement of all claims, whether for costs or otherwise.

The Government is not responsible for the verdicts of juries, and ex gratia payments have only been made in rare cases where the results of an erroneous conviction have borne very hardly upon the individual concerned. In fixing the amount of such payment account is taken of all the circumstances, including the grounds on which the conviction is set aside: the length of detention in prison; any element of error on the part of the Crown; any way in which the person concerned may by his own conduct have tended to bring his conviction upon himself; and other relevant considerations.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

STATISTICS.

Mr. PARKINSON: 37.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will furnish a Return showing, for the week ended 6th October, 1928, the number of collieries in operation, the number of workers, the
number of workers on short time, the number working less than 48 hours, the number working 48 hours, and the number working more than 48 hours?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): During the week ended 6th October, 1928, 2,106 pits were in operation. The total number of wage earners on their books was 897,200, of whom it is estimated that 422,500 were prevented from working on one or more days during the week through want of trade or through transport difficulties. I regret that information is not available or readily obtainable to enable me to answer the last part of the question.

COLLIERY, IBSTOCK, LEICESTERSHIRE.

Mr. RYE: 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information regarding the closing of a colliery at Ibstock, Leicestershire; whether this colliery has been permanently closed; and, if so, what steps are being taken to assist the workers concerned to find other employment?

Commodore KING: I understand that a part of this pit was closed last week, and I am informed by the owners that it is impossible to make any statement at present as to the prospect of reopening. It is hoped that the majority of the men affected will be able to obtain work at neighbouring collieries, and the local Employment Exchanges and the management of the collieries are working together with this object. I understand that work has already been found for several hundreds of the men.

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the reason given for the closing down of this pit was that it was owing to the competition of the sea-borne coal from Northumberland and Durham; and can he exercise a little pressure on the coalowners of Durham and Northumberland to induce them to abstain from this cut-throat competition which is closing down mines in the Midlands?

Mr. LAWSON: Has the competition not been intensified by the Eight Hours Act for which hon. Members opposite were responsible?

Commodore KING: I am afraid that these points do not arise from the question, and ought to be put down.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the coalowners in Northumberland and Durham are endeavouring to keep their pits open by working at a loss?

Captain STREATFEILD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman also aware that the owners in Northumberland and Durham will, very shortly, be still further hit by the effects of the de-rating scheme?

PIT HEAD BATHS, LANCASHIRE.

Mr. TINKER: 39.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of pit-head baths sanctioned by the welfare committee to be erected in Lancashire; and the names of the collieries and the progress made?

Commodore KING: The Miners' Welfare Committee have up to the present approved plans for six pit-head bath schemes in Lancashire. These schemes relate to the following collieries: Raven-head, Chanters, Gibfield Arley, Parsonage, Nook and Agecroft. It is hoped that building will commence shortly in the case of the first three named. In regard to the other three, active negotiations are in progress.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman have inquiries made for purposes of comparison as to the position in Germany and other countries?

Commodore KING: I should require notice of that question.

UNDERGROUND WORKERS.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 40.
asked the Secretary for Mines what is the total number of underground workers at present employed in the mines of the country; what percentage are boys under 16; and the percentage of accidents which occurred to those over and under 16 years, both fatal and otherwise, for the year 1927?

Commodore KING: On the basis of information relating to December, 1927, it is estimated that 728,700 wage-earners are employed below ground at coal mines at the present time, of whom 3.6 per cent. are boys under 16 years of age. During 1927, 96.6 per cent, of the fatal accidents below ground occurred to those over 16 and 3.4 per cent. to those under 16, the corresponding figures in respect of acci-
dents causing disablement for more than three days being 95.9 per cent. and 4.1 per cent. respectively.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention been drawn to the practice of certain coal-owners who employ boys at these ages to do men's work underground?

Commodore KING: No, Sir. I know of no justification for that statement.

BOYS, DURHAM (HOURS OF WORK).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 41.
asked the Secretary for Mines what is the earliest and the latest times of shifts at which boys of under 16 years of age are taken into the mines in Durham county, and at what time the latest shifts leave the mines?

Commodore KING: The most recent information in my possession relates to April, 1927. The times at which the various shifts in Durham start and finish vary from pit to pit, and instances can he found of shifts which include boys either ending just before, or starting just after, midnight. In April, 1927, it was found that 838 boys under 16 years of age were working after 9 p.m. and 1,076 before 5 a.m.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that boys are taken into the pits at one or two o'clock, and do not come out until between two and three next morning; and does he consider that those are reasonable hours?

Commodore KING: I think the hon. Member will realise that, with regard to pit-boys, it is very often the fathers who like to have their sons working with them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is what I am informed, and that is my answer—that in these circumstances I cannot see any reason why it should be stopped.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: If the father happened to be a criminal, would the Government be justified in that view?

Commodore KING: I see no comparison with this matter at all. It is merely a question of working shifts which work through the night. If the father is working on the night shift, in some cases he may wish to have his own boys working with him.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware of what nearly every miner knows, namely, that these boys are working in no connection with their fathers at all? They may be working miles apart, and these are the regular hours for taking the boys into the pits and letting them out?

Miss WILKINSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the argument he has just used is the argument used by Indian coalowners for having women and babes employed in the mines in India?

Commodore KING: I am not aware of that fact.

Mr. LAWSON: Who gave the hon. and gallant Gentleman that information? Is he aware that there is not a single case such as he has mentioned in the North of England?

Mr. BATEY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that these long hours for the boys have only commenced since the Government passed the Eight Hours Act?

ACCIDENT, FOLDFORTH COLLIERY, DURHAM.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 42.
asked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been called to the accident at Foldforth Colliery, Woodland, County Durham, by which two people, father and son, lost their lives; and will he cause an inquiry to be made into the whole circumstances attached to this matter?

Commodore KING: The circumstances were fully investigated at the inquest, which was attended by one of His Majesty's Inspector of Mines, who had previously made an independent investigation. I have no reason to think that a further inquiry would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that in many of these small pits, such as the one referred to in the question, no regard is paid to the regulations; and will he ask the inspectors to take extra precautions in these mines?

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: In view of the fact that both father and son in this case lost their lives, does it not show that the father was working with the son at the time?

Mr. MARDY JONES: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what was the age of the son in this case?

Commodore KING: No, I cannot.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.

COAL INDUSTRY (YORKSHIRE).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 43 and 44.
asked the Secretary for Mines (1) the estimated reduction in the cost of production of coal in Yorkshire and the percentage according to the de-rating proposals, differentiating between tonnage that will benefit by the reduction in freightage proposals;
(2) the approximate quantity of coal produced in Yorkshire and its percentage of the total output for that county that will qualify for a reduction in freightage under the Valuation and Apportionment Act?

Commodore KING: The output of coal in Yorkshire is approximately 44,000,000 tons per annum, but I have no definite information of the quantity which is used at iron and steel works or shipped abroad and therefore entitled to benefit by the proposals for reduced railway freights. As I informed the hon. Member for Roth-well (Mr. Lunn) yesterday, the estimated average reduction in the cost of production of coal commercially disposable in Yorkshire due to de-rating of the collieries themselves would be about 4d. per ton or 2½ per cent.

Mr. T, WILLIAMS: How does the hon. and gallant Gentleman reconcile that figure with the reply that he gave in this House on 2nd May of this year, when he stated that the average rate per ton paid by colliery owners in Yorkshire was 2.57d.?

Commodore KING: I am certainly not aware that I ever gave such an answer. Anyhow, at the present time the reduction in rates will amount to an average of 4d. a ton for Yorkshire.

Mr. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. On 2nd May of this year the hon. and gallant Gentleman replied to a question—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's question shows how inconvenient it is in a supplementary question to refer to an answer given by a Minister some time ago which he cannot be expected to carry in his mind.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Information is sought from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and, when the reply is forthcoming, we find that the figures given by him have no relation—[Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: That really is not a point of Order. It is a matter of argument.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But when erroneous statements are made and circulated throughout the country, are we not entitled to have them corrected?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is a matter for another question at another time.

Mr. WILLIAMS: He is giving the wrong figure again to-day.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put the question down.

LOCAL GOVEUNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to refer the Local Government (Scotland) Bill to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, and, if not, for what reason?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, the Local Government Bills for England and Scotland are so closely inter-related, especially as regards finance, that it is necessary that both the Bills should be dealt with in Committee of the whole House.

Mr. BENN: Does not the Prime Minister think that it would be more appropriate that the Members for Scottish constituencies should be consulted on details of the changes in Scottish law?

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can give further consideration to the answer which he has just given, in view of the fact that this Bill is purely Scottish and
that the appropriate body to discuss Committee points of the Bill is the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think it has always been the custom of this House that Bills of the very first importance so far as possible shall be kept on the Floor of this House.

Mr. BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state any recent precedent where an important' Scottish Bill of this character has been kept on the Floor of the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the latter part of my reply answers that, namely, that as there is much of the Bills in common and they are so closely inter-related, they are Bills on which the verdict of the whole House should he taken, just as we have the assistance of the Scottish Members in regard to English Bills.

Mr. BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman say, therefore, that it is necessary to bring in the opinion of English Members in order to override the opinion of Scottish Members?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: In view of the fierce opposition in Scotland to this Measure, will the Prime Minister reconsider the question of cutting out this Bill from Scotland altogether?

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman's reason for not sending it to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills that he is afraid to face the verdict of the Scottish Members of his own party?

Mr. MACLEAN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: There will be a Motion put to the House as to whether or not the Bill should go to Committee of the whole House. That will be the occasion when Members, if they think fit, can vote against the Motion.

Mr. MACLEAN: This is a matter which affects Scotland, and I want to ask the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that there are so many changes made by him in the Bill that he is making applicable to Scotland, due to the difference that exists in Scottish law and assessment matters, he will not reconsider the reply which he has just given and allow Scotland to discuss the
matter in the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills which was set up in order to give Scotland the opportunity —[Interruption].

Mr. SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has already answered that question, and he can only give the same reply again.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. For your protection, Sir, but for the interruptions from the other side my question would have been ended before you rose to your feet, and if you are going to protect Members of the other side, I am going to ask you to extend the same protection to Members upon this side.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: I shall treat all Members alike.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wish to ask the Prime Minister if it is not the case that the Secretary of State for Scotland personally went and appealed to the Prime Minister in order that he—[Interruption.].

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate the question now.

Oral Answers to Questions — PANELLED ROOM-INTERIORS (EXPORT).

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister, whether his attention has been called to the frequent exportation from this country of panelled room-interiors and, in particular, of the famous Elizabethan room in Whitehall, Shrewsbury, recently sold for export to the United States; and whether the Government will introduce legislation to prevent such diminution of the national inheritance?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend's suggestion has been noted.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE FORCES (STRENGTH).

Sir J. POWER: 47.
asked the Prime Minster the present total strength of the armed forces of the Crown, including Reserves and Territorials, now and on 1st July, 1914.

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is extremely difficult to give in a concise form figures which will reflect accurately the comparative strength of the armed forces of the Crown on the dates specified, having regard to the developments and changes which have taken place in the intervening 14 years, and in particular the emergence of the Royal Air Force as a third independent Service. In so far as personnel can be accepted as a gauge for this purpose, the approximate comparable figures are: —


1914
…
…
…
…
940,000


1928
…
…
…
…
674,000


The above figures cover all forces (including reserves and auxiliary forces) for which provision is made in the Estimates of the Service Departments.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Is there any reduction comparable to that in the forces of the Allied and Associated Powers?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should want notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

COMMITTEE OF INTELLECTUAL CO-OPERATION.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can see his way to make a grant on behalf of the British Government to the work of the Committee of Intellectual Co-operation in close association with the League of Nations?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I have been asked to reply. Provision for the work of the International Committee on Intellectual Co-operation is already made in the general budget of the League of Nations, of which this country, of course, bears its share. A sum of approximately 250,000 Swiss francs has been allocated for this purpose in the budget for 1929.

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr RENNIE SMITH: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if he has given further consideration to the recommendations of the International Economic Conference with a view to the early removal of barriers to international trade?

The PRIME MINISTER: The attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the Resolutions of the Conference was fully explained to the House by the President of the Board of Trade on the 20th July, 1927. Since that date His Majesty's Government have continued to associate themselves with the steps taken by the League of Nations through its economic organisation to give effect to those Resolutions, and, in particular, have taken part in the Conference on import and export prohibitions and restrictions. This Conference resulted in the International Convention which has been signed on behalf of His Majesty's Government and will shortly be ratified.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Does the Prime Minister think that his proposed policy of extended safeguarding is likely to assist the work of the International Economic Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am in favour of more reciprocity.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-ALLIED DEBTS AND EPARATIONS.

Sir F. HALL: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the annual sum now being paid to the 'United States of America in repayment of war debt and how much of that is in respect of expenditure incurred directly on behalf of allied Governments; what are the respective war debts of the Allies to this country; what are the respective amounts now being repaid annually on account of those debts; and what is the annual sum which Great Britain is receiving under the German reparations scheme?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The annual sum now being paid to the United States Government in respect of our war debt is£33 millions. Our receipts from allied war debts during the current financial year should be£12,800,000 (in- eluding£8 millions from France and£4 millions from Italy) and our reparation receipts should be£19 millions, making a total receipt of about£32 millions as against our payment of£33 millions. The annual payment to the United States Government rises to£38 millions for the
52 years after 1933; but our receipts from allied war debts should also rise, in accordance with the scales of settlement agreed upon, so as to cover (together with reparations) our increased payments. Details of the various war debt settlements will be found in the Funding Agreements, which have been presented to Parliament. With the exception of a small amount re-lent to Russia, no part of the British War Debt to the United States Government is in respect of expenditure incurred directly on behalf of other Allied Governments. It can nevertheless he said that if we had not lent£2,000 millions to the Allies, we should not have had to borrow£1,000 millions from the United States.

Sir P. HALL: Does the£33,000,000 to which the right bon. Gentleman refers include all the interest that we have to pay, and is there any truth in the suggestion that it is proposed that there shall be some reduction made with regard to the amount that Germany has to pay?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The figure which I have given includes the interest and the sinking fund to amortise the debt in a period of 62 years. I have nothing to add to the public statement which I made on the subject of the inquiry into reparations.

Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to have these war debts, which are paralysing the trade of all countries, wiped out?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should be very glad to see them wiped out, but it is hardly within my power.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not the case that in 50 years' time Europe will be paying £82,600,000 a year to the United States?

Mr. CONNOLLY: Are the Government thinking of a basis of discussion for the settlement of the Russian debt, or is it the intention of the Government to wipe out that debt?

Mr. CHURCHILL: By no means are we wiping out any claims that we may have for money lent to Russia.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I am asking if the Government are seeking a basis of discussion for the settlement of the debt?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not a basis of discussion that we want, but some settlement.

Mr. POTTS: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of reparation payments by Germany under the Dawes scheme for the year ending 31st October, 1928, expressed in German gold marks and in British values, showing each separate payment applicable to the British Empire, Army of Occupation, Reparation Recovery Act, and cash transfers, respectively?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As the hon. Member's question involves a number of figures, I propose to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The payments made by the Agent-General for Reparation Payments during the year ended 31st October, 1928, to or on behalf of the British Empire were as follow:



Gold Marks.
£


Sums received in sterling.




(1) Through the Reparation Recovery Act procedure
302,983,922
14,852,153


(2) By cash transfer
69,259,529
3,395,075


Sums utilised in Reichsmarks.




Payments to the German Government for supplies and services to the British Army of Occupation and on other accounts
21,149,309
1,036,731


Total gold marks
393,392,760
£19,283,959

Of this sum, Great Britain received£14,034,761 for reparations and£3,124,188 for Army of Occupation, Belgian War Debt, etc., and the rest of the British Empire received£2,125,010 for their share of reparations.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEER DUTY.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the loss to the revenue of the arrangement made with the breweries in 1923 by which the cost of beer to the consumer was reduced by 1d. per pint?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It was estimated at the time of the 1923 Budget that the reduction in duty by£1 per bulk barrel would, after allowing for a consequential increase in consumption, cost the Exchequer about£16½ millions in the first full year. It is not possible to say exactly what the cost has been, but I see no reason to suppose that that estimate was far out.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: In view of the rating relief which the breweries will receive under the Bill which is being brought in by the Government, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether they can see their way substantially to reduce the price of beer?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not see that there is any relevance in the two things.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has any guarantee been given to the right hon. Gentleman by the breweries that, in view of their enormous profits, they will hand the benefit on to the consumers?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I have received no guarantee.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the difference between the dividends paid by the breweries in 1914 and those paid to-day?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.

Mr. W. THORNE: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Industrial Assurance Commissioner made an award against an assurance company to pay£216 to Mr. J. T. Wolstenholme, of 3, The Parade, Margate, together with the sum of£54, representing accrued interest, in respect to a War Loan policy which has been declared to be outside ordinary industrial assurance contracts; that thousands of people have been influenced to pay premiums on this class of policy; and if he proposes to take any action to induce the company to return the premiums, with interest, to the policy holders?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): Mr. J. T. Wolstenholme claimed against an industrial assurance company for the return of the premiums paid by him on a policy of endowment
assurance issued by the company, under which the sum assured was payable in 5 per cent. War Stock, 1929–47, or cash, at option, with interest on such premiums, on the ground that the proposal was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation of the terms of the assurance by the company's agent. The Industrial Assurance Commissioner awarded him£216, the amount of the premiums paid, and£54, interest at 5 per cent. on such premiums from their respective dates of payment to the date of the award. The decision was given on the facts of the particular case as proved in evidence. I understand that no conclusion should or can be drawn from it as to any other transaction than that involved in the particular claim. The remainder of the question therefore does not arise.

Mr. THORNE: Is the Financial Secretary prepared to communicate with the Prudential Society, which is the body in question, as to whether there are not similar claims?

Mr. SAMUEL: I must ask for notice of any case which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — RYE LIFEBOAT DISASTER.

Mr. R. MORRISON: (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the evidence given at the Coroners' Inquest upon the Rye lifeboat-men that the lifebelts were water-logged and would drown the men instead of supporting them; and in view of the fact that lifebelts of a similar kind are in use on other parts of the coast and the anxiety of those who may be called upon to use them he can make a statement upon the matter?

Mr. CHRISTIE: (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to hold a formal inquiry into the Rye lifeboat disaster?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The Board of Trade have ordered an inquiry into the circumstances attending the casualty to the Rye lifeboat, and that inquiry will cover the allegations made with regard to the lifebelts.. I am informed by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution that the lifebelts used by the Rye crew
were of the pattern known as No. 3A, and that lifebelts of this pattern were retained at the request of the crews at 14 out of the 205 stations under the management of the institution. The institution inform me that they are causing all the lifebelts of this pattern at these stations to be tested at once, and they are making it known that any crew which feels the slightest misgiving can have these lifebelts replaced by lifebelts of the other pattern.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are the lifeboats inspected by the hon. Gentleman's Department, and, if so, how frequently?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I would like to have notice of that question.

Miss WILKINSON: In view of this appalling disaster, does not the hon. Gentleman think that the time has now arrived to take the whole of this important service from private charity, and to have a thoroughly competent State service?

Mr. WILLIAMS: This disaster has nothing to do with the form of ownership of the lifeboat, but it has relation more particularly to the depth of the sea at that particular place.

Captain FANSHAWE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the district inspector of lifeboats inspected this lifeboat and all her gear in February of this year, and that everything was found correct?

Mr. MACKINDER: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that, if it had been a national service, they would have had a non-self-righting boat?

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Is it not a fact that several Royal Commissions have given the opinion quite clearly that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is far more efficiently run under private enterprise and under voluntary circumstances than it would be under State control?

HON. MEMBERS: What about the Navy!

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that a non-self-righting boat was chosen by the Rye crew themselves, and that in certain seas a boat need not be capsized but the crew can be drowned, even if it is non-capsizable? Will not the hon. Gentleman answer that question?

HAIRDRESSERS' AND BARBERS' SHOPS (SUNDAY CLOSING).

Mr. STEWART: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the compulsory closing of hairdressers' and barbers' shops on Sundays.
This is a Bill to stop Sunday labour, which I wish once again to submit to the House. There are several reasons why it should be passed. In the first place, it has been supported by nearly every Member of the House. It is a non-party Bill, backed by Members representing every party in the House. It is also the fact that this particular trade is a dangerous trade. The conditions under which the people work are injurious to their health, and in a great many cases the shops themselves are unhealthy places, and if we had a proper standard of inspection of these shops, I believe many of them would not be allowed to carry on. Further, the workers in this trade work longer hours than does the average shopkeeper. As one who worked in the trade from the time when I was a very small boy, I can tell the House that hours have not decreased as they have in other trades. To-day the average hours are from 60 to 70 per week.
Again, I would point out that a large number of young boys are engaged in this occupation. They frequently begin before they have left school, starting in the trade at 10, 11 or 12 years of age to work what we call "half time," and they have to do that for seven days in the week. When they reach the age of 14 years, they become available for working full time in this trade in which they never get one full day to themselves. Conditions generally in the trade are abhorrent, and very few boys who can avoid it will go into the trade. It is the unanimous desire of those of us who are in the trade and are fortunate enough to be outwith these conditions to join with the other people who are compelled to work seven days per week in demanding a higher standard for the people who have to follow this occupation. Again and again during the last 50 years or more we have taken every opportunity of testing the opinion of the trade, and it is to-day as it was long
years ago, and there is a desire that the present conditions should come to an end in this year 1928.
Conditions tend to grow worse. There are more shops throughout the country and more of them are open on Sundays than was the case 20 or 30 years ago, because competition grows ever keener. It is a poor trade, poorly paid, and, as I have said, the work is carried on under conditions inimical to your health as well as ours. In 1914 one out of every five of the persons engaged in this trade died of consumption. When you go to the barbers' shop to be looked after, just remember that one out of every five of the men who are attending to you is a source of infection to you. If you allow them to work under these conditions you are going to pay your share of the price. I do hope this Bill will get the same support from the general body of Members as it had last year, and I would appeal to the Home Secretary's Department to give it the facilities which he denied to it last year. We like him despite the way he sometimes expresses himself with regard to opinions that he does not like, and while he is the mildest man who ever cut a throat, I hope he will show us that in this case he will not cut the throat of this poor little starveling, this poor little ill-faring baby, but will do his best, with that kindness which is characteristic of him, to see that it survives and becomes a Measure that will be a credit to himself and a credit to the humanity of the Members of this House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stewart, Mr. Templeton, Mr. Morgan Jones, Mr. Barr, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Sutton, Mr. R. Morrison, Mr. J. Jones, Sir Samuel Chapman, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. Womersley, and Mr. Broad.

HAIRDRESSERS' AND BARBERS' SHOPS (SUNDAY CLOSING) BILL,

"to provide for the compulsory closing of hairdressers' and barbers' shops on Sundays," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

Orders of the Day — SUPERANNUATION (DIPLOMATIC SERVICE) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to provide for the application to persons in the Diplomatic Service of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919, and to authorise in the case of such persons the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of allowances and gratuities under those Acts as so applied "—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Mr. A. M. Samuel.]

4.0 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The reason why I am asking the Committee to pass this Resolution is in order that the Government may have authority to bring in a Bill to place all officers of the Diplomatic and Foreign Office Services on the same basis so far as pensions are concerned. I think hon. Members have in their hands a White Paper which we have prepared, number 3224, which will give them all information needed about the proposal which I shall lay before them. I think it is within the knowledge of the Committee that the Diplomatic Service and the Foreign Office Service were amalgamated into one Service in 1919. The duties of the services are now interchange able. The personnel are regarded as liable to take duty at home or abroad in any country as His Majesty may require. But the result of this amalgamation has been that the pension arrangements both of the Diplomatic Service and Foreign Office, which have always been difficult to work, have now become unworkable. I would like to show the Committee how difficult the position has become. Members of the Foreign Office appointed before 1919 are pensionable under the ordinary Civil Service Superannuation Acts as long as they remain at work in the Foreign Office, but if they go abroad permanently they come under the 1869 Act, and the result is if they should unfortunately die abroad on service, they lose the benefits of all their service in the Foreign Office.
On the other hand, let us take the other branch of the amalgamated service—the Diplomatic Service. Members of the Diplomatic Service, old as well as new, are pensionable under the old 1869 Act. All officers appointed to the combined services since 1919 are legally members of the Diplomatic Service, and for that reason come under the 1869 Act. Under that Act, which now covers the appointment of all officers since 1919, the only thing which counts for pension is service abroad. We desire to straighten out the difficulties, and put pensionable diplomatic service and Foreign Office service on one and the same basis, namely, on the basis of the Civil Service Superannuation Acts. There is no compulsion with regard to old servants in the Diplomatic Service. They can, if they like, remain as before under the 1869 Act.
All Officers appointed, as I have just said, in the combined services since 1919 come for pension under the Act of 1869. Let me show how unfairly that operates. Under the 1869 Act the only service which counts for pension is service abroad. If they have any service in the Foreign Office at home, it does not count at all for pension, even though an officer may be required to spend a great part of his total service in the Foreign Office. If he has been appointed to this service since 1919, he may be prevented from obtaining sufficient service abroad to qualify for pension, and this wholly unfair and unreasonable result arises, that after a lifetime in the service of the State, he may not get any pension at all. Of course, hon. Members will perceive that that is an intolerable position, and this hardship will fall particularly severely upon those officers who have entered the Service after 1919 when the means qualification was abolished.
I will state another difficulty of the way in which this operates. Let us suppose that an officer appointed to the Foreign Office before 1919 dies on service. If he dies while on service at home, his widow and family will be eligible for a gratuity under the Civil Service Superannuation Acts. But if he has been sent abroad permanently and dies on service abroad, he will then come under the Act of 1869, and no gratuity will be payable to his dependants. That is a grave injustice,
and it is a state of affairs which, I think, the Committee will assist me to remedy. We are, therefore, seeking by this Resolution to place all officers in the combined services under the Civil Service Superannuation Acts.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I ask the Committee to reject this Financial Resolution. I really do not know how my hon. Friend can stand at the Treasury Box and make such an eloquent appeal on behalf of the widows of civil servants of this character, because of the straits in which they may be left. The hon. Gentleman comes here and asks for pensions for the Diplomatic Service, for individuals who have far more wages than the miners or engineers. I want the country to understand that we are going to express our point of view, no matter what it costs us. Here we are asked to give pensions to people who have never paid a penny for those pensions. No contributory scheme is suggested here. It would be a different thing if it were members of my class. This is proof again that there are two nations in this country—the rich and the poor, those who have and those who have not. The Diplomatic Service comes under the category of those who have, because we are told on all hands—some tell us with tears in their eyes, and a tremendous halt in their voice—how those individuals who go out to represent this, the most wonderful Empire on which the sun ever shone, away in foreign parts they are stripped bare as the result of the lavish expenditure that that service entails upon them. We say that if there is expenditure of that character, it should be borne by the State, and not by individuals. Until that is done, then those services never can he carried out by anybody else than those who have money.
We on these benches are representing the working classes. Many of us represent thousands who have never known what it is to have a square meal this year, and the year is about finished. If everybody in this country was well, was comfortable, I would be the last man to raise my voice against anybody getting anything, but we are here representing the workers who, at the moment, are being driven from pillar to post. There is a great agitation in Scotland at the moment over the standard on black, the
background yellow, with rampant lion. The rampant lion of Scotland to-day is poverty. The fiercest lion that ever was in Scotland is abroad to-day, and we here, representing those poor folk, are being asked in cold blood, quite calmly, by a distinguished Member of this House, who commands the respect of this House, to agree to pension off individuals who have reached the age of 60 years—I am bordering on that myself. We are being asked to give them £1,700 a year pension by the same Government who forced the miners of this country, at the point of starvation, to accept a reduction in wages and increased hours.

The CHAIRMAN: This really cannot be gone into on this Resolution. The hon. Member is not in order now.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am very sorry you have risen to bring me to order at this point, because that is exactly the point I covered last time, and was complimented because you did not pull me down.

The CHAIRMAN: It is hardly a compliment to suggest I was guilty of negligence on the last occasion.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: No, it was simply that you were more tolerant than you are to-day. I am going to discuss this with you, Mr. Hope. The point I am raising is this—and I have as good a right to raise it on the Floor of the House of Commons as anybody else in the House. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury says that the country can afford £1,700 per annum as a pension. I say it cannot, on their own showing, and I am trying to show you why. Surely that is in order. Sir Douglas Hogg, before he was created a Peer, stood at the Treasury Box in my hearing, and said on behalf of the Government, that after careful consideration and much deliberation the Government had come to the conclusion that the country could not afford to support the mining industry any further, and he said that they would require the miners to work longer hours.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member will see, that, if he were allowed to proceed on those lines, it would be possible to raise the whole question of the controversy of 1926, and he must confine himself to the question of pensions to persons in the Diplomatic Ser-
vice. The hon. Member may embark upon an illustration, but, if he is going to raise the whole of the mining controversy, he will not be in order.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have no desire to follow that line of argument any further, and I was only using it as an illustration. I have been told by those who claim to be the greatest authorities in this House on procedure that to do what I have done would always be in order. Hon. Members belonging to every section of this House will have to face this question in the country whether they are Tories, Liberals or Labour representatives. What is now being proposed represents a state of things which no man can justify. I am not a better man now that I am getting £400 a year as a Member of Parliament than I was when I was working as an engineer on the Clyde. I claim that I am as good a man as any other man in this House, and I render service to my country to the best of my ability.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now advocating an increase in the salaries of Members of the House of Commons. The question we are discussing is whether some civil servants should receive the same pension rates as other civil servants. The Members of the House of Commons are not civil servants, and, therefore, that question cannot be relevant to the subject which we are discussing.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: If £400 a year is enough for me, it is enough for the best man who ever left these shores. I am well-fed, well-clothed and well-housed, and I am as healthy looking as anybody in this House. What more does a man want? The proposal which we are discussing is one to enable these officials in the Diplomatic Service to get more than their fellows in order that they may get control over other people. We are being asked to give these individuals an allowance of £1,700 a year, and I wish to ask hon. Members why it is, after all our enlightenment, and remembering that Socialists proclaim the equity of man, the brotherhood of man, and the fatherhood of God, that they come hero and attempt to justify a proposal giving these civil servants £1,700 a year as a pension, and at the same time do nothing for the men who do the absolutely necessary work for the community, and are able to obtain
for that work only the barest possible pittance.
The class I represent do the most onerous work under the most uncomfortable circumstances, and they get the least possible wages, and when an opportunity presents itself for stating their case, we are not allowed to do so. A section of the community have set up a certain standard of living for themselves, and we on these benches are here to protest against that. We are here to prove that that particular section of the community is not at all superior to us, or superior to the working-classes whom we represent. We do not see why a miner or an engineer should be asked to work a whole week for under £3 a week and no pension. What about their widows and dependants? What about the shipyard worker? What about the position of the working-class in general upon whom this country entirely depends?

The CHAIRMAN: This is entirely a question of civil servants. Some of them receive a certain pension and some do not, and it is now proposed that those who do not receive pensions should receive the same scale of pensions as that which is enjoyed by those who do now receive pensions. This is not a question of a general rate of wages and that subject is out of order.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: My point is that those civil servants have no right to any special treatment. In our view, those officials have been getting special treatment all along, and they have been getting more than the working-classes. This is the only opportunity which presents itself to us when we can explain our point of view and express the sentiments which are surging through the lives of the working-classes, but which are not articulate. We are free from the shackles of wage slavery, and we have been sent here to express the sentiments of the workers and the views of those men who have to work for their daily bread. We have had frequent discussions in this House relating to unemployment. There are large numbers of workers in the country who are unemployed through no fault of their own, and they have contributed to a fund to stave off starvation. They have made those contributions from their meagre in-
come in order to safeguard their loved ones from starvation. I am speaking of the state of things not in Russia or China but here in our native land where women and children are existing on about 17s. a week; and yet these civil servants who contribute nothing towards the pension scheme, who have "cushy" jobs, are going to have these large pensions.
I am told that some of these civil servants are individuals related to the Government of the day and particular friends of the Government who have been given jobs. If this had occurred in Chester-le-Street it would have been held up as graft, but it is eternally going an. I do not wish to pursue this discussion any further, because there are other hon. Friends of mine who wish to speak from the same point of view. I may say that we intend to divide the House on this question, because we think it is a very serious business. This is a question upon which we are in real earnest, and we make a distinct challenge to the ruling class. When the Labour party come into power, we are going to do what we have been putting forward for the last 30 years. When we get the opportunity, we are going to overturn the whole of your system, and this proposal is one of the chances which we have of overturning your rule without shedding any blood. When we come into power, we shall change all those things. Only look at that joker Thomson from Aberdeen, walking down the floor of the House in all his gold braid representing the King. The whole thing is humbug, and we are going to alter it.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has committed a serious breach of order in his reference to an hon. Member. I must ask him not to do it again, or I shall be obliged to take more serious notice of it.

Mr. TINKER: I oppose this Resolution. Before I come to the main point, I want to commend the Financial Secretary for having brought the Resolution before the Committee at a reasonable hour. On the previous occasion he brought it in at midnight. We opposed it then, and also on another occasion when it was brought in late at night. We are anxious that this Resolution
should have the full light of day, so that people outside may know what is taking place. My object in rising is to draw comparisons and point out what this means. It may not be known to the Committee that the present cost of diplomatic pensions is £50,000 per annum, and this Resolution is going to increase that amount. I put down a question with reference to ex-members of the Diplomatic Service who were on pension, and was told that there were 44 of them, receiving on an average £1,093 per annum. That was the statement made by the Financial Secretary last July, and we are now being asked to increase that amount.
If hon. Members have an idea of what this means in effect, they may agree with Members on these benches that it is unfair, at a time like this, to talk about increasing pensions. I have heard it said that it does not mean any extra cost to the Exchequer, and I would like to know about that before this Debate is over, because, according to my figures, it means an increase for the first five years of 23 per cent., then a further increase of 11 per cent., and then a further increase of 6 per cent., gradually settling down to 4 per cent., or an annual expenditure, after 10 years, of £2,000. Therefore, putting the three figures together, that is to say, the 23 per cent., which represents £11,500, the 11 per cent., which represents £5,500, and t5e 6 per cent., which represents £3,000, we get a total, after 10 years, of £20,000, and the average, which I am trying to arrive at now, is £6,000 for each year. That is for the first 10 years, and it will settle down, as I have said, to an average expenditure of £2,000 per annum.
I want, in opposing this grant, to draw the attention of the Committee to these matters. I contend that, at a time like this, when we are in such financial difficulties, we have no right in the House of Commons to grant any further pensions or increases of pensions while these people are doing so well. If the amount were small, I would not argue as my hon. Friend has argued, and, indeed, I could not very well argue that everyone must be treated on equal lines. I realise that that cannot be done. I could not argue that these people are not deserving of some kind of pension, but it is wrong to come forward at this
time to increase pensions which are already so very big. If I may be allowed to draw the comparison, only last Session I asked a question of the Minister of Pensions in regard to need pensions being taken into consideration when the old age pension was being paid, and I was told then that they had to have regard to the amount of money coming in when the old age pension was being paid, and, therefore, the thing had to be equalised.
These are points which cause us to rise on occasions such as the present and point out to the House of Commons that, when there is the opportunity of doing something for the very poor people, we are always met by the statement from speakers on the other side that the financial position will not allow it to be done; and, when we are asked to grant big increases to a number of people who, to my way of thinking, are certainly not in need, these matters strike us very keenly, and we are anxious that everyone, should be aware of what is being done. If the Tory party or the Government seek to justify this kind of thing, I, for one, will do all I can to try and show our people that, in my view at least, it cannot be justified while so many people are suffering as they are. I trust that, as was the case last year, the Government will not press this Resolution. The position that we took up last year was the cause of the Bill being withdrawn, and I hope that on this occasion also the Government will realise that this is the wrong time at which to bring it forward, and that they will withdraw it and leave the matter over until the financial situation of the country is much better, and it is possible to make an attempt to put these men on a better footing. I, for one, will do all that I can to stop this Measure from going through.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think that anyone in the Committee will doubt the personal sincerity of the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the Labour Benches, however much one may disagree with the views which they have expressed. I have on more than one occasion said in this Chamber that I regarded pensions as deferred pay, and that applies to pensions in this Service just as much as to pensions in any other Service.

Mr. J. JONES: What do you mean by service?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Any branch of the Civil Service.

Mr. JONES: What about the national service?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend who moved this Resolution, and I think that, whatever individual views may be, the Committee as a whole will accept the view that it is reasonable and right that one branch of the Service should be placed in the same position as every other branch of the Civil Service. It is well to remember that the Foreign Office Service, or Diplomatic Service, has, until quite recently, been what might be regarded as a close Service.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What about the Pensions Service that you were at the head of? Make a comparison with them.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I will make that comparison on the proper occasion, but I think the Committee will agree with me that, whatever individual Members may say, it is not lair or reasonable that one branch of the Civil Service should be left out in the cold.

Mr. JONES: No branch of service should be left out.

Mr. MACPHERSON: What I am now going to say will, I think, appeal to the working-classes of this country. It is well to remember, when we are discussing the Diplomatic Service, that until quite recently it was a closed service, that is to say, it was a service practically reserved either to what are called the upper class or to the very rich people of this country. Recently, however, it has become more democratic, and there is no reason why a clever young man of humble parentage should not have the same career in the Diplomatic Service to-day as the son of any other person in the country.

Mr. JONES: Do you know of anyone?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Only the other day the name of a very distinguished young man was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Quite recently, and, as I gather, it is to be expected in the future, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay
MacDonald) was at the head of this service, and I am perfectly certain that he did his level best to give any man of ability, to whatever class he might belong, the chance of a career in that service. I say, however, that it is perfectly impossible, however willing a Foreign Secretary may be to see a young man of poor circumstances make his way in that service, for such a marl to have that chance, unless he is assured by means of a pension that it is safe for him to enter upon that career. Therefore, upon these broad general grounds, I support this Resolution. In the first place, I think it is right and reasonable that this service should be placed in the same position as every other branch of the Civil Service, and, secondly, I say that, without the hope of a pension, which is merely deferred pay, this still remains a closed service to the son, or it may be the daughter, of a member of the poorer classes of the community. On these grounds I support the Resolution.

Mr. SAMUEL: The case is even worse than is indicated by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). I do not disagree with a word of what he has said, but I do not think the Committee has realised that this matter of pension has become unworkable, and that great difficulty is caused by the amalgamation of these two Services. I want to put the point as strongly as I can before hon. Gentlemen opposite, so that their sense of justice may cause them to see that we are bound to take the action that we are now taking. If a man is appointed now to the combined Service as it has existed since 19193 he may be prevented by the terms of his service, if he is called upon to serve in the Foreign Office at home, from obtaining sufficient service abroad to enable him to qualify for pension. The result is a condition of gross injustice. Owing to the impasse at which we have arrived, a man may, after a lifetime spent in the service of the State, be unable to get a pension at all. That is an injustice that we must put right, and I appeal to the Committee to consider it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: There are millions of people of our class always in that condition.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I want to continue the point which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). I raised this question two years ago, and the Financial Secretary, in reply, said that this question of a blind-alley occupation in the Diplomatic Service was causing the Government deep anxiety, and they promised, two years ago, to give it consideration. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is here, because I want to ask what has been done. I called the attention of the House then to the fact that in our consulates in Europe, particularly in Belgium, a state of things existed which was most deplorable. The personnel there received a fixed scale of wages, on which they remained during practically the whole of their service, and they were not open to get superannuation in the ordinarily accepted way. According to the White Paper that we have now, an alteration is, apparently, going to be made, because it says:
Existing members of the Diplomatic Service will be brought under the new Act unless they prefer to remain under the Act of 1869.
I have been looking at the Act of 1869, and there is no reference whatever to them in that Act.

Mr. SAMUEL: The Consular Service is already under the Civil Service Superannuation Acts.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I am taking the Financial Secretary back to his own answer to me on the 9th November, 1926, when I brought this matter before him. The question is whether anything is going to be done, in the Consular Service in Europe, to make employment in the Diplomatic Service something other than a blind-alley occupation. The admission was made that that was causing the Government anxiety, and that it was under consideration at that time, two years ago. I do not know whether the reference here means that something has been done, or is going to be done. I see that further down on page 4 of the White Paper it says:
Until it is known how the option given to existing officers is exercised, no certain estimate can be formed of the immediate cost of introducing the new system.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Member referring to the Consular Service? I am not clear what he means.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I am speaking of the personnel at the consulates—people who are debarred from coming under the superannuation scheme at all, or were up to 1926, at any rate.

Mr. SAMUEL: If the hon. Member means that the Consular Service does not come under any pension arrangements, let me assure him that it does come under the Civil Service Superannuation Acts as regards pensions.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I am speaking of the personnel at consulates on the near coast of Europe. I may be under a misapprehension, but I was not under a misapprehension two years ago, in 1926, and, if necessary, I will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT, which I have here, in order to bring back to the Financial Secretary his own answer to my question.

The CHAIRMAN: I think there must be some misapprehension in regard to this matter. The hon. Member seems to be referring to employés at consulates who are not civil servants at all. If that be so, the matter can hardly be raised here, because the whole question here is one of different classes of people who are already civil servants.

Mr. CONNOLLY: That is exactly the point that I am bringing forward, that they have not the opportunity, which they ought to have, of belonging to the Civil Service. I would remind the Financial Secretary of the form in which I raised the matter. I raised it, first of all, on the question of the currency. These employés at the Consulate, who ought to be civil servants, were being paid not at sterling rates, hut at the rate of the currency. The Financial Secretary said that was a technical consideration. Then I drew attention to the anomaly of the personnel of these consulates not being brought in on proper Civil Service regulations, and I am asking now whether this White Paper, when it speaks of existing members of the diplomatic service, includes these people. Is there some part of this Estimate to cover a proposal to bring these people in? I want to raise it as a matter of urgency, because the treatment that has been meted out to these people in the consular service is a by-word.

Mr. BARKER: This proposal is peculiarly obnoxious to this part of the House. When we contrast the pensions of these members of the Diplomatic Corps with the pensions given to working men after 60 or 70 years' hard work, the whole thing is outrageously and monstrously unjust. It is impossible for anyone with any sense of justice and fairness calmly to acquiesce in a proposal of this kind. The working classes, if they are thrifty, are saddled with all kinds of disadvantages. I had an answer from the Secretary to the Treasury yesterday with reference to a question sent up to me by the Monmouthshire County Council Pensions Committee, where the money saved by certain people who had been thrifty is estimated to bring in an interest of 10 per cent., and though it may be in the Post Office Savings Bank only bringing 2½ per cent., they are charged on a 10 per cent. basis. Evidently that is monstrously unjust to those people. We have to-day a proposal under which a person who may have done 10 years' service in the Diplomatic Corps may obtain a pension of £2,000 per annum, whereas those who are getting the meagre wages they are receiving to-day will get an old age pension of 10s. per week, and every time they strike a match they will be contributing something to the pensions of these other people. We on this side of the Committee cannot possibly support a proposal of this character. It is striking at the very root of equality between one man and another. The day is very nearly drawing to an end when a Minister will dare to make a proposal of this character to the House of Commons. It is time those who are down and out had some consideration from this House rather than creating an aristocracy. That is what it means, because these diplomats will get some kind of a title, and then they must have pensions from the State to live up to the title the State has given them. By that means the workers are continually exploited by the Treasury and by the House. I hope the strongest opposition will be given to this proposal. I shall certainly vote against it and I do not know how it can be supported by anyone who has any sense of equity and justice as between man and man.

Mr. J. JONES: There is an old adage which runs:
For he that hath, to him shall be given; and he that bath not from him shall be taken even that which he hath.
Most of the people who are going to benefit by this proposal are already well provided for. The question of pensions for services rendered is a principle with which all of us would agree, but the ordinary working man before he can get a pension at 65 has to be an insurable person under the national health and unemployment insurance scheme, and before he can get an old age pension he must have given a certain number of contributions. Who are these people who are going to get special treatment? The Lord Tomnoddies, people who could not get a job in the ordinary labour market and are pitchforked into our foreign offices in various parts of the world. One of the conditions under which they get their jobs is that they must have passed through a university and must have certain degrees.

Captain EDEN: No.

Mr. JONES: How many bricklayers are foreign representatives? They must have passed through the schools, or through the associations connected therewith. It is no good talking humbug. When ice get down to brass tacks we know that all the higher positions in the Foreign Service are at the disposal of only certain classes of the community. There are boys getting education at a school just opposite here who are being trained for the Diplomatic Service. It is part of the curriculum of the school. The ordinary workman's son does not stand a cat in hell's chance of getting one of these jobs. An hon. Member below the Gangway pointed to our late Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, talking as if Labour was going to have a hand in the arrangement, and he found the very people he was trying to help sold him a pup. Where did the Zinovieff letter come from if not from that class of people, who are out for all they could get without giving anything in return? I am not going to hold the candle to the devil. If we are going to have pensions, let us have pensions all round. These people never subscribe to any pensions scheme. It is called deferred pay when they do not pay anything.

Captain O'CONNOR: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the two hon. Baronets opposite to maintain a conversation while the hon. Member is talking?

Mr. JONES: I am not troubling about who talks when I am speaking. Who are these people who are going to get pensions? Are all the servants of the State employed in this line going to receive equal treatment? Are all the messengers who are sent out going to be put on the same basis as the people who order them about? Are the workmen connected with the various establishments that we control in foreign countries, going to have the same kind of treatment? Will the Minister tell us that they are? If he did, a good deal of our opposition might be averted, but after all who is going to foot the Bill? The people of this country have to find the money to pay all the pensions. Now we are told these people are getting simply deferred pay. If the old age pensioners got deferred pay, it would not be 10s. but 30s. at least for the service they have rendered to the nation in the production of wealth. Therefore, we are opposing this Motion not because we want to prevent any man getting a pension, but, if pensions are paid to those who do the least of the work, there ought to be pensions for those who do all the work. We protest against special treatment for special classes of people.

Mr. MACLEAN: I feel I could not allow this matter to go through, more particularly after having heard the explanation of the Financial Secretary. The hon. Gentleman said this matter should appeal to our sense of justice. That is just the reason why we are opposing it, because it appeals to our sense of justice. These people for whom we are asked to provide pensions come from a particular class in society. To enter the Diplomatic Service one must have certain qualifications. One of them is the accident of birth. One must be born in a particular stratum of society before he is admitted to the Diplomatic Service, one must have a certain kind of education and a certain income. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] One must have an income of not less than £400 a year. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] That used to be the case. However, I withdraw that. But I notice that no one interrupted me or questioned me when
I said that those who enter the Diplomatic Service are drawn from a particular station of society and must have a certain kind of education.

Captain EVANS: A short while ago the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs pointed out, in reply to a question put by a Member of his own party, that the First Secretary of one of our embassies abroad is the son of a cleaner of locomotives.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN: That is the one lily in the bed of wheat. That is the one exception that is quoted to us in order to induce us to vote for the proposal. That is one, out of the many who are in the Diplomatic Service, who has sprung from the ranks of the working class to induce us to vote pensions to all the rest. They are asking the impossible. I have a question on the Order Paper to-day relating to a woman in my constituency who is in receipt of a need pension from the Ministry of Pensions. What has happened? Upon obtaining the old age pension of 10s. a week, her need pension of Os. 2d. was reduced by 4s. 2d. to 5s. a week, making the total income of this pensioner 15s. per week. Women and men in Govan come to me and produce papers from the Ministry of Health showing that they have been refused the old age pension on the contributory basis because of being on the borderline. There is, perhaps, some little anomaly regarding contributions. Widows are refused pensions there of 10s. a week. Appeals are made to us across the Floor of the House by Members sitting on the Government Benches to the effect that there is not sufficient Money in this country to give certain little concessions for which we ask from time to time with regard to unemployed people and to old age pensioners. Yet the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has made appeals to us not to press claims for concessions on the ground that this country cannot afford them, now comes before us and appeals to our sense of justice to give him power to award pensions of £1,700 per year or nearly £36 per week. If £1,700 were given in a lump sum to any of the old age pensioners in this country, it would, if invested at 5 per cent., provide an income of
approximately £80 per year. From what I can see, there is on these Benches a feeling against this proposal, and hon. Members want to utter their protest. As I said at the outset, I cannot allow this thing to pass in silence, and, if it is pressed to a Division, I shall certainly vote against the passage of this particular Resolution. I could not face the people at Govan who are being refused pensions, I could not face the men and women in Govan who have been refused unemployment benefit by the Ministry of Labour if I allowed such a proposal as this to go through unchallenged and allowed the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to obtain it without a final protest on my part.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I hope that we shall not allow this matter to get out of its proper proportions. The very important and germane points which have been raised by my hon. Friends behind are founded on very fine experience, and it is absolutely impossible for Labour Members who come into close contact with the industrial conditions and the human conditions of everyday life not to make reflections such as those which have been made by my hon. Friends this afternoon. I am not at all sure, however, that when we turn again and again in this House and in this Committee to exposing those points that our case will not be all the stronger if we give fair play irrespective of the conditions in which men and women find themselves. I am perfectly certain that the arm which is going to strike injustice out of the high places ultimately is going to be the arm that has struck injustice, irrespective of class, out of conditions that have been exposed before the final blow has been struck. Therefore, this afternoon I am going to support this Resolution. This is not a Resolution asking for new pensions. I am quite clear about that. It is not a Resolution asking that men shall be pensioned who in the eyes of the law and in the spirit of the law ought not to be pensioned now—[Interruption.] No, I know what I am talking about. It is something in my own experience that compels me to support this Resolution.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I say that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in presenting this Resolution to the Com-
mittee, said that there were certain members of the Diplomatic Service in the Foreign Office who had served their whole time in this country and did not give service abroad who are not receiving pensions, and that it was in order to give them pensions that this proposal has been brought in.

Mr. MacDONALD: As a matter of fact, these men now but for certain discrepancies in the law would have their pensions, and they belong to a service which is legally a pensionable service. Let me justify myself by drawing an analogy. I am not sure that it is a very practical one, as it only comes to me without preparation. Supposing my hon. Friend happens to leave this House for a week and if he goes to Scotland his pay of £400 is continued, but if instead of going to Scotland he goes down to Devon for a week he gets none of his pay owing to some curious and unforeseen and undesigned provision of the law—supposing that were the wording of two rather incongruous Acts of Parliament, then if this Committee were to amend the Devonshire residence disqualification it could only be said that it was adjusting what really was an absurd, unfair and unjust anomaly in the law of the country. The intention of the House all the time was to pay Members of Parliament. That was its intention all the time, but by certain laws it was found that if a Member of Parliament was in a certain place he would get his pay and if he was in another place doing exactly the same work and, still in the service of the State, he would get no pay at all. I can assure my hon. Friend that that would be very unfair. That is all that there is in this case. Of course, reflections about £1,700 and so on are perfectly obvious, but again the men who are going to get the £1,700 are not going to get an addition of £1,700.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: They are going to get £1,700.

Mr. MacDONALD: That may be, but let us get at the justice of the thing and deal with the mathematics of the thing later on. The justice of the thing is, that it is not those men who are going to get £1,700. They are going to be taken from non-pensionable status and given a pensionable status, so that, with all the
vagaries of the application of the law applying to pensions of the State, they will know when their time comes that it will not be a Treasury clerk or a Foreign Office clerk who will look through their papers, and say: "This man is going to get £500 or that man £700." The effect of this is going to be to declare that those men who are civil servants, who have served in the Civil Service with a certain status, shall have the same pension as their colleagues of exactly the same status in the Civil Service have at the present time. That is the position.
There is another point which, I think, ought to be explained. It may just be on the verge of Order, but I think that it is within the narrow line. Who are these men? It has been said that only one son of a, working man is in a high official position. As a matter of fact, I think that there are more, and what we have to remember is that we are going to have still more. There is no mistake about that. What is the use of all the elementary school scholarships, going to secondary schools, and going up to the universities if we are not going to use the brains of the working-class in the State service. Moreover, at the present moment those men are selected by a Committee and upon that Committee sits my hon. Friend the Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton), who has done extraordinarily good work. Supposing we put one of these men into a Diplomatic office with very great responsibility, and he does his duty well and he retires. Why, if that man belonged to the class which had £400 a year income from private sources he could snap his fingers at our pension. He would be all right. If he were my son or your son, what about it then? These are the men who suffer most of all from the existing law which we are now going to change by passing this Resolution. That is the position. It is more than that. It is a position which I experienced when I was at the Foreign Office, and it is very unfair. If it is a question of revising salaries and that sort of thing, I would remind hon. Members who have been members of Town Councils and local governing bodies, that if they have done their duty they have again and again voted salaries for town clerks and others greater than many of the salaries of those officers whom we are now considering.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Never once.

Mr. MacDONALD: I said that they have if they have done their duty. The principle is a perfectly settled one and all sections of the Committee and all parties will have to recognise it. The State Service must be very well paid if we are going to retain the people whom we want to be in that service. One of the things that we are constantly complaining about—and if we complain about it we ought to face the facts—is that there is too much leakage from our Civil Service into private industry. I say to this Committee, perfectly frankly, and to the Civil Service itself perfectly candidly, that if I expect great ideals in regard to the Civil Service, and if it is my intention to use the Civil Service in a way in which the Civil Service has never yet been used—for the purpose of advancing national interest and building up a very fine national organisation—I am going to say to the civil servants, "You stay with us, and we will give you pay, we will give you status, and we will give you an honour which no private outside employer can give you." It is part and parcel of that ideal to welcome this Resolution, for which I am going to vote.

Mr. BATEY: The Leader of the Opposition has put the cat among the pigeons. I beg to differ from him, and I am unconvinced in regard to my opposition to this Resolution. A fortnight ago, we were told that the Government needed all the time of the House, and on that ground they took all the time of private Members, the argument being that that course was necessary in order to get through the business of the Session. Notwithstanding, we have scarcely started the Session when they bring forward this Resolution, which is to be followed by a Bill. Last year, for six months, there stood upon the Order Paper a Bill dealing with this question, but the Government allowed it to lapse and the finish of the Session killed the Bill. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury remarked that a gross injustice was being done at the present time to the men in the Diplomatic Service. I would be the last, if I knew it, to do a gross injustice to anybody, but I do not believe that we are doing the least injustice to these men in the Diplomatic Service.
We are paying them pensions to the extent of £50,000 a year and this Resolution means that we are going to increase that amount. I would ask the House to remember that this is public money and that we are not justified in giving public money to a certain class at the expense of another class.
The White Paper says that it is proposed to give these people pensions of £1,700 per annum, after 15 years service. I would ask the House to compare that with the position of my own class. I came to this House in order to keep the interests of my class before my eyes and I think of them before anything else. The men who work in our Durham coal-pits are fortunate if they earn a wage of £100 a year. After 15 years service, what pension do they get? They get no pension at all. After 25 years service they get no pension. If we reverse the 15 and make the figure 51 we find that. after 51 years service they may get a pension of £26 a year. These Durham, coalminers are men just as are the people in the Diplomatic Service, but they have not the same chance of saving. They have no opportunity of providing for a rainy day. These men in the Civil Service, who are so much better circumstanced, are to be entitled after 15 years service to a pension of £1,700 a year, while the men of my class after 51 years service are fortunate if they get a pension of £26 a year. That is a gross injustice. The Financial Secretary talks about a gross injustice. The gross injustice is to the working classes of this country and not to the members of the Diplomatic Service.
The Leader of the Opposition used one argument which rather tickled me. He said that at the present time there are sons of the working class in the Diplomatic Service. One swallow does not make a summer. The right hon. Gentleman added that we are to have more of the sons of the working classes in these high positions. God forbid, because in most cases to raise up men from the working class and to put them into service like this, with these huge pensions, simply makes them snobs. It makes them forget their own class. I am not anxious that the sons of the working class should be put into these positions and I would not vote for it, because one's experience is that if we
put them there they would be no better than the others. Therefore, I will not vote for putting them there. The White Paper says that this pension system is unsatisfactory in itself and quite unsuited to modern conditions. That argument does not apply only to the Diplomatic Service. It applies to the pensions of the working class. Until we get the pensions of the working classes increased, I will not vote for any members of any service to have these pensions.
Last year we introduced a Bill into this House to give pensions to women of over 65 years of age whose husbands had reached the age of 70 years. The proposal was to give them a pension of 10s. per week. Hon. Members opposite killed that Bill. They would not allow us to have a Second Reading. They prevented these women of over 05 years of age, whose husbands were 70 years of age before the 2nd January, 1928, from having pensions. They said to these women of the working class: "We cannot give you a pension of 10s. a week," yet they will go into the Lobby to-night to vote for pensions of £1,700 a year to members of the Diplomatic Service. They will do that, after their treatment of the working class women. If the pensions in the Diplomatic Service are not. suitable to modern conditions, equally the pensions of the working class are not suitable to modern conditions. We have thousands of working men and working women who cannot get a pension. They have been prevented by one thing or another from getting a pension of 10s. a week and they have to exist on the Poor Law. Until these people can get a pension, I shall vote against any diplomatic pensions. With all the present trouble and distress in the coal industry it would be a good thing if we could give an adequate pension for the miners when they reach the age of 60. We are told in the White Paper that an Ambassador or Minister may be pensioned before attaining the age of 60. If the Government would find the money to superannuate our miners at 60 years of age, instead of feeding the fat sow as they are proposing to do by this Resolution, they would remove from the mining industry a good many men who have no hope—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting very remote from the Question before the Committee.

Mr. BATEY: I wish to keep in Order, but the statement in the White Paper rather tickled my palate. I refer to the statement that the pension system is unsatisfactory in itself and guile unsuited to modern conditions. The present pension system as regards the working class is also unsatisfactory.

The CHAIRMAN: We are dealing in this Resolution with a particular class of the Civil Service. The hon. Member cannot go into the whole question of the pension system.

Mr. BATEY: I am quoting from the White Paper which backs up this proposal. If the Government are entitled to issue a White Paper for the purpose of supporting the proposal, surely I am entitled to criticise it. It is a gross injustice to the working class for the Government to propose to pay such big pensions to a certain class of people and to leave the working class in their present condition. I can, of course, understand the Government doing it, because they know that their time is very short. They know that the judgment day for the Government is coming, just as some of us believe that there is a judgment day for men. They know that the judgment of the country will be passed upon them and that they may pass into outer darkness. Before they go there they want to make sure that they have made provision for their friends. They are not justified in asking us to pass this proposal. I hope that the majority of Members on this side of the House will not only on this occasion but on every occasion oppose a system like this which divides the people of this country into the upper class and the lower class and provides for the upper class whilst neglecting the interests of the working class.

Mr. CHARLETON: As my leader intimated, I have served on the Committee of Selection for entrants into the Diplomatic Service. I have sat on that Committee for three years and T think this Committee ought to know what takes place, because it may be that there is some slight misconception as to how the young men are selected for the Diplomatic and Consular Service. The
young men come before the Committee, and it is our job to examine them, not from the point of view of class but as to their fitness to represent us in the Diplomatic Service. It may be that the Diplomatic Service is wrong—I am not arguing that question—but we simply as men of the world, and we are a pretty well-assorted lot, examine these young men and try to find out what sort of young men they are. We have their references from various sources. We turn some down. You have a spectacle of an engine driver declaring that the son of a lord or a duke is not fit to serve his country in the Diplomatic Service.
No young man has been passed for the Diplomatic Service with whose selection I have not agreed. I have agreed with the selection of every man who has been passed during the time I have been on the Committee. When the candidates leave us they have to go through a very stiff examination and there, perhaps, some of my hon. Friends are to some degree right when they say that the man with the university training has an advantage. He certainly has, but we have before us bright youths, intelligent youths who have won scholarships—I am not saying that the scholarship system is right—and have gone to the universities and done very well. Some of them were passed; how they got on afterwards is not my business. Some of my lion. Friends seem to have forgotten this point, that for the first time something is going to be done by way of pensions for those in the Diplomatic Service. This is doing what the Labour party would have to do when we come to overhaul the Diplomatic Service.
At the moment the granting of pensions is open to favouritism; it is an award for service. There is no right. This is a proposal to put it on an equitable basis; a man will get a pension as a right and by virtue of his service, and we shall he able to deal with the matter in the House of Commons. We have not been able to deal with these pensions in the past because they never came before us. We do not know how many men were on pensions. If this proposal is accepted every man will get a pension according to his length of service. The reference in the White Paper to "modern conditions" seems to me to suggest that
in this matter we are bringing it into line with what we on this side would desire. In the old days, when a man had to have a private income of £400 before he could enter the Diplomatic Service, he was not much concerned about pensions, but when the individuals for whom hon. colleagues of mine have been pleading get into the Diplomatic Service it will be very necessary that they should have pensions. If a bright lad gets into the Diplomatic Service he will know that at the end of his service he will get a pension which will carry him to the end of his days. That is all I propose to say on this matter: I thought I ought to say it before the Vote is taken.

Mr. MAXTON: I wish to associate myself with those who are opposing this Resolution. I cannot say that I have been very deeply impressed by the arguments put forward in its favour. A considerable sum of money is involved, something like £20,000, and that is a consideration which the Committee should weigh before letting the matter go out of their grasp. In spite of what the hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton) has said I do not think, being a minority on the Committee that he would have a very powerful influence in deciding the types of those who get through the narrow door into the Diplomatic Service. I am very anxious that members of the working class should get into the public service, and the very first step towards that is the abolition of the Board of Selection altogether. There is no special reason why men going into the Diplomatic Service should pass the Board of Selection before they sit for the examination. It does not apply to the men going to the Home Office or the War Office or any other Government Department. It is argued that because sons of the working classes may get into this service at some distant date that we ought to see that when they reach 60 years of age they should be provided with pensions of £1,700 a year. I want to point out this fact in addition, that if a man is going to get. a pension of £1,700 a year he has had, according to the ordinary calculations of the Civil Service, a salary of £3,400 in his retiring year and a sum approximate to that for many years before.

Mr. CHARLETON: They do not all get it.

Mr. MAXTON: The lowest figure mentioned in the White Paper is £700, which means that a man has had a salary of £1,400 a year, and the majority of the electors in South Leeds, certainly a majority of the electors in the Bridgeton Division, if they had a salary of £1,400 for one year could make ample provision for a considerable number of years afterwards. And that is not all. According to the Civil Service practice we give a gratuity of 1½ times the amount of his annual salary to a man on his retirement, which means that the Labour party on this side of the House is supposed to agree to a proposal to give a man on the first year of his retirement £1,700 a year as pension and £5,100 in the form of a gratuity, that is, £6,800 in one lump sum. The hon. Member for South Leeds has appealed to us. He has a knowledge of the Diplomatic Service and the excellent work that is done, and he tells us that it will be necessary for a Labour and Socialist Government to pay high rates of remuneration in order to retain in the public service the highest forms of ability. I notice that the Government have been unable to retain the services of one of their most eminent members because of the attractions outside. Every man who wants to desert the public service for higher money outside should be allowed to go, and we should wave him goodbye, but I hope very shortly after the accession of a Labour Government that there will be very few opportunities for a man to desert the public service and enter into private enterprise; I hope the position will be that if they do desert the public service they will be' unemployed.
I do not think that in the Diplomatic Service, or in the public service generally, there is any scarcity of talent to perform the most difficult tasks. The hon. Member for South Leeds has referred to the necessity which local authorities have felt to pay high salaries to town clerks and other public officials. I know that on many occasions town councils have been persuaded to believe that they ought to pay high salaries in order to get the services of particularly competent men. We had a case in Glasgow, where a public official getting £3,000 a year insisted that he could not carry on unless he got another £500. The town council nearly believed it and thought that he would resign if he did not get it. He
did not get his extra £500, and he did not resign. We have had other cases in Glasgow. A certain town clerk who bad been in the public service for many years, highly respected, and was regarded as an irreplaceable man. All the citizens were expecting that the administration of Glasgow would collapse when this old gentleman did retire. He retired. We searched the length and breadth of Great Britain at a fancy salary for a man to take his place. We got him, and retained his services for a short time only. We advertised again and got another man. He went after a short time, not proving very competent; and we then found that the man who had been working as a junior subordinate of the old man was capable of taking his place. He did so; but got the idea into his head that he was absolutely irreplaceable and that we must pay him a fancy price. I have been in the public service myself, and I know that for every man holding a big position there are about 50 underneath him who believe that they are perfectly competent to take his place.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: In politics too.

Mr. MAXTON: Yes, and it would be a pity for the world if it did not apply to politics.

The CHAIRMAN: We are getting very wide of the Vote, which applies to a particular class of civil servants.

Mr. MAXTON: I was trying to argue the point that the type of quality which is required for this work is very scarce and that we must, therefore, pay scarcity prices in order to keep it in the public service. I do not think there is anything in the facts of the case to support that view. An hon. Friend of mine has suggested that if we do the decent thing here hon. Members opposite will be persuaded to do the decent thing towards the working-classes. He knows that that would be a very grotesque thing to expect. I find sufficient justification for opposing this Resolution in the fact that never have I seen hon. Members opposite at any time come into this House with a spirit of generosity towards members of the working-classes. Never once during the seven years that I have been in the House have I seen an appeal of this description made on behalf of the bottom dog in this country, whom we
represent, and, therefore, I think it is fair Parliamentary methods to say that if the Government refuse to treat those who are clown at the bottom all the time with decency, let alone with generosity, then we certainly shall do all we can to prevent them giving a very favoured section of the community anything more than they have at the present time. I shall oppose this Resolution.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: No one will complain of the dulness of this Debate. I imagine that everybody will be delighted with the unanimity expressed by silence on the other side of the House, and by the expressions which have been used on this side. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) says that he is going into the Lobby against this Resolution in order to give expression to his disgust that hon. Members opposite have never once done anything for the working classes.

Mr. MAXTON: Shown a spirit of generosity.

Mr. THOMAS: lie is going into the Lobby to show his opposition to hon. Members opposite, because he neither believes them nor trusts them, but, in doing so, he forgets that he is consciously doing an injustice to somebody else. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am dealing with the arguments used; and the statement of my hon. Friend was clear and definite, that his opposition is to the Government, never mind the injustice to the people with whom we are trying to deal. I also agree with previous speakers on this side of the House who say: Why should we support a proposal which gives £1,700 a year pension to someone when at the same time other people are denying 10 shillings a week to members of the working classes? Again, I associate myself with the protest and opposition against their actions in that connection, 'but, after all, the question we have to vote on it this: there are two people in the Civil Service doing precisely the same work, rendering precisely the same service, serving the community faithfully and well, but because of a flaw in the existing law one of them is deprived of rights which the other one enjoys.
If it is admitted that that is the existing state of affairs, what bearing
have the old age pension and all the other grievances got on the removal of that particular anomaly as it exists to-day? That is exactly what is proposed. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition says, "Let us carry it to its logical conclusion." In 1924 there were vacancies for the highest positions in the Dominions and the Colonies. I suppose that my hon. Friends behind me will at least subscribe to the view that brains are not necessarily the monopoly of any class. I, as a Minister of a Labour Government, took the view that in these administrative and big positions we ought not to consider either the special social position or the politics of the individuals chosen. Then why ought we to go into the Lobby with my hon. Friend and perpetuate a system that deprives us of the opportunity of availing ourselves of the brains, even for those positions? That is what you have to answer. [Interruption.] The answer I get is that provision will be made. But as my right hon. Friend said earlier on, you are not here asking for any special favour or privilege. What becomes of the argument that you must not vote for this because these people are getting £3,000 a year As one of my hon. Friends has said, there are people in his constituency not getting anything like it. Hut there are a number in my hon. Friends' constituencies not getting anything like what they get.

Mr. J. JONES: And there are more in your's.

Mr. THOMAS: As my hon. Friend says, there are more in mine.

Mr. JONES: I wish I had half of your's.

The CHAIRMAN: I really must ask hon. Members to allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed.

Mr. JONES: I know. He must not throw bricks or he will get them back.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed with his argument. If he will not refrain from interrupting, I must ask him to leave the House.

Mr. THOMAS: The Leader of our party gave expression to his view. No one interrupted him or anyone else who expressed the opposite view. Surely we are
all entitled equally to deal with the arguments used in connection with particular proposals. I say that this is neither inconsistent nor unfair. Is it to be argued that we are to oppose the regularising of a pension system that is admittedly unfairly applied to-day? Can it be argued that we must do that on the ground that these people obtain a certain salary for their work, while miners or railwaymen or cotton operatives get a less salary? It is not unfair to say that the logic of that is, "Let us all be on the same salary."

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear£

Mr. JONES: That would be your sacrifice.

Mr. THOMAS: That being so, we know exactly where we are, and all our town clerks and Prime Ministers and even our Members of Parliament had better give immediate evidence of their anxiety to bring it about. At all events, I shall vote for this proposal, but I refuse to have it said that in voting for it I am in favour of the present miserable pension for the working-classes; I refuse to have it said that I am unmindful of the social and economic conditions of our own people. I shall vote for it for precisely the same reasons as my Leader will vote for it, because I do not think it is a good thing to perpetuate an admitted injustice when that injustice can be speedily removed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not think this is a question over which one need get hot. There is no question of justice involved in this matter at all. We on these benches are not being unjust to the Diplomatic Service, and the Government are not animated solely by the spirit of justice. Every member of the Diplomatic Service on entering the Service knows perfectly well the conditions under which he has to serve. The pension conditions are among the elements considered naturally by every person entering the Service. What we are considering to-day is purely a question of expediency. Are we to pay higher pensions? I noticed in to-day's "Times" the proof of the will of our previous Minister to Jugo-Slavia at £125,000. If all Ministers were as well off as that there would be no need of this increase of pensions. But it is known perfectly well that they are not, that some are well off and some are not.
The present system of pensions, I understand, takes into account considerations of that sort, whereas the new system proposed in this White Paper is a hard-and-fast system dependent on length of service.
As far as I can see from the White Paper, only Ministers and Ambassadors who have served for five years get any benefit under this scheme. It has long been my idea that it would be far better to get, as Ambassadors, people from this House rather than from outside, people who would bring democratic ideas to deal with new countries, not in the old spirit of the old diplomatic service, but in the spirit of the outside world. Such people would obviously be short-term people. Their services would in every case be less than five years. This scheme automatically debars everybody of that sort from getting a pension. That alone is bad from the point of view of this country's interests abroad. I would point out to the hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton) that he would not get a pension unless his service exceeded five years, and then he would get only a gratuity. It is only after 10 years that there is a pension. This affects merely the people who enter the service as diplomatists and carry on through life as diplomatists.
There is another point. We have recently increased the cost of the Diplomatic Service. There have been new Ambassadors appointed in Argentina and the Brazils, and that change has involved additional expense. There are few signs anywhere of Ambassadors being reduced to Ministers. In Turkey we still preserve the fiction that that is a country to which we should send an Ambassador. The expenses of the service, owing to the large number of new countries that have been started since the War—Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Finland—have increased, because additional Ministers have been appointed. If this had been an increase in the cost of the Consular Service, I should have been all in favour of it. That would have been something for our trade. The diplomatic branch seems to me to be a branch on which we might wisely economise. The relations of these small countries to this country are not as important as were the relations of the larger countries to this country before the War. We are in a position of much greater
security and independence of the political co-operation of those other countries. We need not spend so much money on diplomacy because we are safer. That may be a small reason, but there is an additional one.
We are now carrying on a great deal of our diplomacy and our relations with these small countries in Europe through the League of Nations. The League has been a constantly growing expense, and we have not had a corresponding economy in the old diplomatic machinery. We are now at a time when we might reduce the old machinery and use the new machinery more, and thereby save money. Therefore, when this question is brought up, I wish it were brought up as showing an economy instead of an additional expense to the taxpayers. Whenever a Diplomatic Service is brought up I should strongly urge economy, although it would be fighting against a vested interest which is peculiarly strong. There is all the old machinery, all working perfectly smoothly, composed of perfect people who are delightful to meet and do their job perfectly well. It is excessively hard to cut down the expense of that branch of the service. But, in view of the rise of the League of Nations, we should not be asked now to vote an additional £23,000 a year to this particular branch of the Diplomatic Service.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. WRIGHT: I may observe at once that I am opposed to this proposal. Like my colleagues, I oppose it on conscientious grounds, but I do not approach this question from the same point of view as some of my colleagues. I do not regard it purely as a working class question, or from a working class point of view alone. My view of pensions is that they ought to be paid to all men who need them, and that a pension ought not to be paid to any man who does not need it and who has been able to provide for old age out of the salary or wages which he has received. That is the position which I have hitherto taken up and unless some very important argument is advanced against it, that is the position which I shall continue to take up. I have never been satisfied that men like Members of Parliament, or Judges, or members of the Diplomatic Service, are more valuable members of the community than manual
labourers—dock labourers, men who cultivate the soil or men who dig coal in the mines. I am not sure that it is a wise discrimination to treat one class with luxury and the other class with hardship. We are quite in order in opposing this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) was good enough to advance the argument that it was possible for a man, however humble his position to enter this service. It is equally true that it was possible for working men to enter Parliament in 1869 when the Act governing this matter was passed; but it was, in practice, quite impossible for any number of them to enter Parliament then just as it is quite impossible in practice for the sons of working men to enter this service now. Therefore that argument does not carry us much further.
When we consider that the recipient of a first class pension of £1,700 per annum gets, in a month, as a pension the equivalent of what a highly skilled workman at 50s. a week will earn in a whole year for working, and that the £25 a week represented by a pension of £1,300 per annum is more than the average miner receives for the full year's work, I think it will be seen that we have some reason for our attitude on this matter. The same argument can be applied to other categories of workmen. Representing as I do, to the best of my ability, a very important industrial constituency, and as a member of the Labour party for many years, I could not conscientiously support this proposal, by whomsoever else it may be supported, in view of the fact that this Act was passed at a time when there were no representatives of labour in this House. There is bound to be a revision in regard to many of these questions in proportion as the strength of the Labour party is increased. We have to remember that vast numbers of our people have no provision for their old age and are now living in poverty and distress—indeed in many cases in actual semi-starvation. I should not be doing my duty if I, in any way, recognised the pensions which are proposed here and I am not concerned as to the conditions under which they were originally fixed.
Much of the ground has been covered in this Debate and some of the arguments
advanced in support of the proposal seem to me so flimsy as to be scarcely worth notice. It was with regret that I heard the argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). He said that Members on these back benches were receiving more than many of the people in their constituencies. That is perfectly true and it is not very creditable to the industrial system. But there is the further argument that we have much more expense than these men living in our divisions. What is more, the right hon. Gentleman, when he was in office, received a pension of ten times more than back benchers received. Is he ten times a better man than the men who are sitting on the back benches?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Not a pension—a salary.

Mr. WRIGHT: I accept the correction, hut the argument holds good. I think the right hon. Gentleman had better have left out that argument entirely. I can scarcely see anything more calculated to check the progress of the Labour party than the attitude of certain hon. Members to-day. If they deliver those speeches in the great industrial centres, they will damn the prospects of the Labour party for the next 20 years.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I have on other occasions when proposals of this kind came before us, taken strong exceptions thereto, and I should be failing in my duty if I did not oppose the present proposal. I came to Parliament to make such efforts as I could on behalf of those who are riot in the position of being able to look forward to a pension of any kind at all. I am not at all surprised at the attitude of the Front Opposition Bench or at the deliverance which has come from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). We have followed his movements in regard to other things, where those who are in high positions have his very sympathetic consideration. His concern apparently is to start adjusting anomalies and injustices at the top. I thought the Labour representatives came here, first of all, to consider those who are at the bottom. That is the general impression prevalent in the minds of the workers and I agree with the previous speaker that there is
every likelihood that many workers will take note of the disparity shown on such an important question as this.
The right hon. Gentleman asks us to consider tile anomalies or injustices prevalent in this particular connection. My case is that we are dealing here with a grant of substantial pensions to those who have had plenty of opportunity to make requisite provision for their future. It is most natural and most logical that we should consider, in contrast with this proposal, what confronts the mass of workaday people who cannot get any employment at all. We have to remember faithful and ardent toilers who are seeking to serve the best interests of the community in industrial life—that is, speaking of those who are even getting a chance to make a livelihood. But what of those who are not getting a look-in at all? How can any man representing the Labour movement fail to take advantage of this opportunity to emphasise the necessity for a complete readjustment of our pension system. I reckon that these opportunities offer us a special advantage from this point of view—that we can strike the public mind and bring home to the public conscience the fact that Parliament with perfect complacency will vote thousands of pounds to people who are simply wallowing in wealth, while we have sneering and scoffing and ridicule when issues are presented concerning those who have only a dark bleak outlook for the future. To me the thing is appalling.
I notice when subjects of this kind are introduced, there is a feeling which is expressed in the words, "So-and-so is likely to discuss this question, but it will soon be over and there will be nothing more in it." I can understand the feeling which comes over Members when they get to the House of Commons. There is an atmosphere, there is an influence abroad, that is insidiously dangerous to those who have committed themselves before the body of the public by giving undertakings and entering into obligations. We have our electoral responsibilities; the people think that we are in earnest and that we intend to push forward their interests as far as Constitutionalism gives us the opportunity. There are such striking contrasts in connection with this matter that every
conscientious man or woman must feel that sooner or later we must start on a readjustment of these questions.
When we are being asked by the Government to support a proposal of this kind we should reflect on the pitiful allowance for the old lady who makes the way smooth for Ministers and ex-Ministers in making readjustments on those carpets over which we walk. No pension there—a mere pitiful allowance. An absolute disgrace to the House of Commons. [Interruption.] Yes, after 40 years' service. I can understand the situation of an ex-Cabinet, Minister having difficulty in opposing this kind of thing. Anybody with a cork head could understand that. When we were discussing the late Speaker's pension, an hon. Member who belongs to the Conservative party, but who used to be a Labour Member—there are many and various kinds of Labour Members nowadays—challenged us on the point of whether we would go in for reduction of our own salaries. It was a reference in my direction. I said then, and I say now, that I am prepared to face that challenge and substantially to face it. I would be the last man to make a personal boast. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman one of the leaders of your party, has said it and I am dealing with him just now. He has said that we are getting more than other people. So far as I am concerned I stood for the representation of Dundee in this House before there was any payment of Members of Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN: I think it is impossible to go into the question of salaries for different classes of public work. I know that some allusion has been made to it, but the hon. Member seems to be pursuing that point to the extent of discussing equality of reward for different kinds of public work. We must confine ourselves to the question of pensions.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I was going along the Derby track and that, of course, is a dangerous line. Still I feel that when we have taunts of that kind put forward, I must in defence, as far as it is in order to do so, say that I am not frightened by anything of that kind, and I am prepared to go as far
as any man or woman in this House on that matter. I submit that if there are those opposite who are being urged to face the pensions question by those who are deeply grieved about the situation as it confronts them in their inability to get the Government to go any further, one of the best ways in which they can make an impression upon the Government is, on every occasion of this kind, to go into the Lobby in opposition to it, in order to impress the public mind and conscience of the absolute necessity of getting a thoroughly readjusted system of pensions for all concerned.

Major OWEN: I have been very much interested to listen to the opposition above the Gangway to this measure of justice to the Diplomatic Service. One is reminded of the very different attitude taken by Members of the Labour party when they were actually in office. I think I can recall to the memory of the Committee that when they came into office in 1924 they had a surplus from the previous Government of about £40,000,000, and that that surplus was available for the use of the Labour Government during that period, but I think I am also within the recollection of the Committee when I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in those days said he had no money with which to give pensions to widows and orphans, and he could not—

The CHAIRMAN: This is a very large argument to build on the very narrow question of two kinds of civil servants.

Major OWEN: The question is why we should perpetuate in this case, where it needs only a comparatively small sum of money, an injustice to men who give public service of a very valuable character to the country. It is an injustice in this sense, that whereas men may join the Diplomatic Service, they do not know when they are joining whether they are to remain at home doing the same work that other men by going abroad are rewarded with a pension for doing. There is that inequality between men joining the service for the purpose of serving the country in that capacity. It strikes me as being rather insincere for Members to object to a small sum of this kind to remove a disability, and what I would like to remind hon. Members
above the Gangway is that it would be far easier to remove disabilities in the case of a larger number of people if they started by small degrees of this sort. If you do what is justice to one class, it gives you a precedent to secure justice for a larger section of the community.

Mr. KELLY: I wonder what has prompted the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvonshire (Major Owen) to speak as he has just done. His reference to a surplus and to widows' and orphans' pensions I will not follow, except by way of illustration. I remember moving a Motion from these benches in March of 1925 on widows' pensions, but I did not see any of the hon. and gallant Member's friends or colleagues on those benches joining forces with me on that occasion. The injustice that is inflicted by the operation of the present method has not been explained very clearly to us, but even if it has, there are injustices resting upon a great many other employés of His Majesty's Government. Not all the civil servants are assured of a pension. Most of the dockyard men are denied it because the Government refuse to establish them, and the bulk of the employés of the Arsenal are not pensionable, because the Government refuse to recognise the injustice inflicted upon those excellent servants, who have given 20, 30 and 40 years' service to their country; but because there is some anomaly among this particular branch of the Diplomatic Service, we are asked to put it right.
I have some recollection of what has been done in the Civil Service since 1919, and I remember that when the salaries of the higher paid civil servants were assimilated, everything was done that they desired should be done, but as soon as ever the anomalies among the higher paid civil servants were rectified, we then had the cry for economy and, I am afraid, the assistance of some of those higher paid civil servants to prevent the lower paid having their anomalies put right. I wonder that the hon. Gentleman who introduced this Motion did not explain to us why these particular servants should be so much better treated than any other branch of the Civil Service. Not only are they entitled to a pension after lb and in some cases 10 years' service, but in certain cases there is not
even the question of any length of service, because a temporary pension may be awarded should there be a rupture of diplomatic relations. I submit that in this Money Resolution you are treating these people better than you are treating any other branch of the Civil Service.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: What is proposed applies to the whole of the existing Civil Service.

Mr. KELLY: Is it the suggestion of the Financial Secretary that those in the Consular Service and all other branches of the Civil Service receive pensions, if at any stage it is found necessary to dispense with their services? The question of a pension at 60 years of age does not apply; a pension may be awarded to these individuals before they reach the age of 60, and before they have completed the length of service mentioned in another part of this White Paper. It is not asking that an injustice should be removed, it is not clearing up an anomaly, but it is putting these people into a much more favourable position than that in which you are placing other sections of the Civil Service. In the matter of the gratuity that is awarded by the Treasury to those who have served in the Admiralty and the Army, it is only at the rate of one-fiftieth of their annual salary—at least, I know there is only a week's wages added for each year's service—hut in this case, in addition to the pension, they are to receive a gratuity of one-thirtieth of their annual salary, so that there again the suggestion that we are dealing with these people in a way that is putting them on an equal footing with other branches of the Service is not a fair statement of the case.
With regard to the amount, I wish that in dealing with the other branches of the Service, with those who have been in your employment and rendered excellent service, you would put up the same scheme for them as you are putting up for these servants. The suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvonshire that it is only a small section and that it requires only a small sum of money to deal with these people is certainly a begging of the question. If an injustice is being inflicted upon the great bulk of the Service, it ought not to be a question of cost, but of justice. Reference was made to the
leakage from the Civil Service. I regret that leakage very much, but as I see many of these people going from the Civil Service into the City and other occupations, I think it does away with the argument of hon. Members opposite who often malign the Civil Service and declare that it is not manned by people who are capable of undertaking business control. I oppose this proposal. I think that if you are determined to remove injustices, you should attempt to remove those which lie so heavily on the shoulders of the weekly wage earners in your employment, and I shall certainly vote against this Motion.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise, in common with most of my colleagues who have spoken, to oppose this Motion. I have noticed during the Debate that there has arisen the question of whether the working class are capable of taking these posts, if offered to them. Here you have a Government, supposed to be composed of all the talents that a wealthy Government can have, a Government composed of great men of all types, and yet, in order to save them to-day, not their own Front Bench, but two members of the working class party have had to be produced to bolster up their weak case. I suggest that the Government have had to take two of the most prominent Members of the Labour party in order to save their case. I want to take a different line from that taken by other hon. Members, and to put three propositions before the Committee. The first is this: Is the expenditure of £50,000 at this juncture justified? Secondly, do the people who are going to receive this £50,000 need it? Thirdly, are those who are in this Service so badly paid that it makes legislation on this subject an urgent necessity?
These are the three propositions. It is not sufficient to say that the sum is small. I have always held that a penny badly spent is far more wasteful than £1,000 well spent. Therefore I maintain that, you must defend the first proposition. I notice that in another place, when this matter was dicussed, we were told that it would not cost the Exchequer a single penny. I find from the White Paper that it will cost a considerable sum of money. In the present state of the finances of this country, whether it be a question of men with
£5,000 a year or £500 a year, there is only a limited sum to spend, and the choice that arises, therefore, is how that limited sum is to be spent I am surprised at anybody on this side of the Committee defending the spending of £50,000 out of the national income to people who, comparatively speaking, do not need it. The nation has made up its Budget for the year, and the choice before the Labour party should be not whether this is an injustice or not, but whether with £50,000 the Labour party could not find a better way of spending it than giving it to diplomats. No other issue is involved.
I am told that we must do this, or an injustice will be perpetrated. Nobody has told us where the injustice is. I am asked to accept it as a fact. I want proof, and we have never been given a bit of proof that anybody would seriously suffer if this Resolution were not passed. Show me a single person who will seriously suffer through lack of food, housing or clothing if this Resolution be not passed, and I will withdraw my opposition. I ask those who support the proposal on what business grounds they justify it? I see the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) in his place. He is one of the leaders of the Diehard group who live for economy, and who come here wanting to know how much the printing department is spending in certain directions, and how much the State is wasting in another direction; usually the amount is £100. How do they justify spending £50,000 of State money on people who do not require it? We were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) that the service is open. These men ought to save more than enough to keep their wives and families in decency and comfort for the rest of their lives. The Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty constantly insisted on the necessity of pensions being inquired into before being granted.
Let me come to my other proposition. Take the case of a man who retires after having an income of £3,300 per year. On his retirement he gets one and a-half years' salary. That is to say, if he retire on 31st December, he has had a year's salary, and then he gets one and a-half years' salary in addition, a, total of
£8,000. Just imagine a man on these benches being in that position. I put it to my constituents when I was explaining this to them, and asked them to imagine what their wives would do if they told them that they were going to get £8,000 when their husbands were dead. No one could guarantee a man's life if he told his wife that. I cannot understand men on this side representing the poor working classes saying that this Resolution is urgent, and that it must be passed, and that the Diplomatic Service and the Foreign Office will not be run properly if somebody, in addition to getting £1,700, does not get £8,000. The mockery and the hollowness of it! The shame and the cruelty of it! It is terrible! This nation has this year a limited sum to spend; the Budget runs to about £800,000,000. Some of it is to be used as interest on the National Debt, and some is to be used on unsocial services to keep the Army and the Navy, and now we are told that we have £50,000 more to spend, and that sum has to be taken for 44 diplomats.
If we have £50,000 to spare let us spend it on those who need it most. That is our first duty. We have constantly to make choices here. Many a time that I was on the Glasgow Town Council I was told we voted for £2,000 salaries and 21,700 pensions. I challenge anybody in this party to tell me of any town council where a Labour man or any Tory has ever voted for a pension of £1,700 to any public official. That is what we are being asked to do to-day, and I hope the House will reject it. There are far more social claims for this money. An injustice may be done if we do not pass this. Let me grant that to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), but injustices could be multiplied a hundred times. The House has a choice how it will spend this £50,000, and it must decide whether this so-called injustice is more urgent than other social injustices. I am convinced that if the right. hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had not been in a Government for nine months he would not have supported this. If this were the last day I was to be in this House, I would take pleasure in dividing against this cruel Measure.

Mr. MONTAGUE: A word or two from another point of view would not be out of place. I represent a constituency
which is as poor as most, and it would be the easiest thing in the world for me to go to meetings and get cheers by talking in the way that some Members on these benches have talked upon this question. If the question really were whether £50,000 should be spent on pensions to diplomats, or in a better way, I would vote for the use of the money to relieve the destitution of the people. But that is not the question we are to decide.

Mr. SAMUEL: The amount is not £50,000.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I took the figure from the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). Whatever the amount, if it were a question of spending the money one way or another, I would rather spend it on destitution than on pensions to diplomats. I am prepared to admit that a discussion of this kind can be justifiably used to point out the inconsistencies of the friends of privilege and wealth on the other side. I am not quarrelling with the use of a debate of this character to bring forward the injustice of the poor and the working people, but I do not want the question of social justice and the question of Socialism, which I am sent here to defend, to be mixed up with a mere question of dividing income or whether this particular type of person gets such and such pension and other people do not get quite as much. That will not solve the problem of poverty. That problem will not be solved by the mere redistribution of existing wealth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and that is not Socialism. Moreover, I would like to put to hon. Members who are so ready with their cheers my point of view as a Socialist on this question. Questions of great importance have been raised in this Debate. I believe in better and equal treatment for everyone; I believe in ideals of equality, but ideals of equality are one thing, and the present system is another. If it were a question of dealing with excessive incomes, the most sensible way for a Socialist party would be to deal with them by methods of taxation. It would be the sensible and the just way. At what point are you going to say "This amount of income"—and it is a question of income, whether it be pension or salary—"is unjust, and a pound below that particular sum is
just?" You cannot get any such standard under a system of society which is not based upon the spirit and principles of equality. I believe that all work which is equally necessary is necessarily equal, and I believe in a condition of society where it will not be a question of two-penny-farthing Jack looking down upon two-penny Joe. I want to get rid of the snobbery which makes for distinction of salary and income, for it is pure snobbery, this mere question of social status and social position.
But these are ideals for which I wish to fight upon a very different issue from this one, and I wish to get my people to defend them upon sound economic principles. We are not discussing fundamental economic principles at the present moment, and what I object to about this debate, and about a good deal which has been said in the course of it, is that there is far too much of the slave mentality about it, far too much slave psychology about it. We of the working class ought, not to talk so much about our slavery. We ought not to go down to our people and say, "You are getting 30s. a week; look what so-and-so is getting. That is not the way to get intelligent Socialist opinion. The only way to get intelligent Socialist opinion is by explaining Socialism to the people, and Socialism will not be attained by this method which is advocated to-day. For these reasons I take the line that we should not base and hinge the principles for which we stand upon such a really comparatively trifling thing as this. We have to fight the fundamental principles upon which Toryism and reaction are based; but although I think it is perfectly justifiable to point out the hypocrisy of certain people it is not justifiable to suggest that we ought all to be upon an equal level so long as the level is low enough. That is the kind of equality for which I am not prepared to stand.

Mr. THURTLE: I would like to explain why I feel it necessary to record my vote against this particular proposal. I would like to assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) that, so far from having anything in the nature of slave mentality, I think I have the mentality of a rebel: and that is one of the reasons why I wish to record my vote in this way. I am
not going to attempt to argue the case for equality of income. I am not yet convinced that such a case can be maintained, and I am certainly not going to argue it this afternoon, but what I feel to be an essential point is that we are about to spend between £20,000 and £30,000. Can we afford that amount when there are more urgent claims upon us? I take my mind back to a few months ago, when I had the obligation of leading a deputation to the Minister of Health. It was a deputation representative of about 12 London boroughs, many of them with Conservative majorities, who went to the Minister to plead with him that he should not economise on the milk for the maternity and welfare centres. He had deliberately imposed a form of economy by which he was going to save £19,000 on the Estimates. He did not attempt to prove to the deputation that there had been anything in the nature of wasteful expenditure. He said these maternity centres were doing most excellent work, and had not granted milk in extravagant fashion; but he told us that the Government had to adopt a course of economy, and that the Ministry of Health, in common with all other Departments, had to make a sacrifice. "I have looked round" he said "and I find that the most appropriate direction in which I can save on the Ministry of Health Estimates is by cutting down the amount of milk which should be allowed for infants and nursing and expectant mothers."
If the Government tell us they are short of money, and that national economy is so imperative that they cannot afford £19,000 for milk for working-class babies and nursing and expectant mothers, we are not going to take it from the same Government that they can afford £30,000 for the purpose of pensioning diplomats. I have to go down to my poor working-class constituents and say to them, "While the Minister of Health cannot afford this necessary money for these maternity and child welfare centres, the Government of the day can afford to spend £30,000 on pensioning diplomats." Presented with a choice like that, I am bound to say that if the Government cannot afford this money for maternity and child welfare centres, that I am certainly not going to grant them a larger sum for the purpose of pensioning diplomats.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 312; Noes, 33.

Division No. 7.]
AYES.
[6.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Day, Harry
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Albery, Irving James
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Dennison, R.
Iveagh, Countess of


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Drewe, C.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Apsley, Lord
Dunnico, H.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. w.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Atholl, Duchess of
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Baker, Walter
England, Colonel A.
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S.-M.)
Kennedy, T.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lamb, J. Q.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Livingstone, A. M.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Bellamy, A.
Falls, Sir Charles F.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fanshawe, Captain G. n.
Loder, J. de V.


Bethel, A.
Fenby, T. D.
Longbottom, A. W.


Betterton, Henry B,
Fermoy, Lord
Lougher, Lewis


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fielden, E. B.
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Lumley, L. R.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Forrest, W.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Brass, Captain W.
Frece, Sir Walter de
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Briant, Frank
Galbraith, J. F. W.
MacIntyre, Ian


Briggs, J. Harold
Ganzoni. Sir John
Mackinder, W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Gates, Percy
McLean, Major A.


Broad, F. A.
Gibbins, Joseph
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gillett, George M.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Bromfield, William
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macquisten, F. A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Goff, Sir Park
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gower, Sir Robert
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Grace, John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Buchan, John
Grant, sir J. A.
Margesson, Captain D.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Burman, J. B.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Meller, R. J.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Carver, Major W. H.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Guinness. Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Montague, Frederick


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hall, Lieut.-Col Sir F. (Dulwich)
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Morris, R. H.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hall. Capt. W D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Christie, J. A.
Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Mosley, Sir Oswald


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hammersley, S. S.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Clarry, Reginald George
Hanbury, C.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Clayton, G. C.
Harland, A.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Cluse, W. S.
Harrison. G. J. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Haslam, Henry C.
Nuttall, Ellis


Cope, Major Sir William
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Oakley, T.


Couper, J. B.
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
O'Connor, T. S. (Bedford, Luton)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Owen, Major G.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Henn, sir Sydney H.
Penny, Frederick George


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hennessy. Major Sir G. R. J.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Herbert, S. (York. N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Perring, Sir William George


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hills, Major John Waller
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Holt. Captain H. P.
Pilcher, G.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ponsonby. Arthur


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hopkinson. Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Preston, William


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh. Denbigh)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Raine, Sir Walter


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Davison, Sir W H. (Kensington, S.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Hurst, Gerald B.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Riley, Ben
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Smithers, Waldron
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Ropner, Major L.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynsmouth)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Rye, P. G.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall. Northern)


Samuel. A. M. {Surrey, Farnham)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Sanders. Sir Robert A.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Sugden. Sir Wilfrid
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Sandon, Lord
Taylor, R. A.
Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Savery, S. S.
Templeton, W. P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sexton, James
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Withers, John James


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Wolmer, Viscount


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Womersley, W. J.


Shepperson, E. W.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Wood. E. (Chest'r. Statyb'dge & Hyde)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Tomlinson, R. P.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.)
Townend, A. E.
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Sitch, Charles H.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Skelton, A. N.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Waddington, R.
Captain Bowyer and Major the




Marquess of Titchfield.


NOES.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Batey, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, Joseph


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Buchanan, G.
MacLaren, Andrew
Thurtle, Ernest


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maxton, James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hardie, George D.
Purcell, A. A.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Saklatvala, Shapurji



Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, J. J. (West Him, Silvertown)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Mr. Tinker and Mr. Kirkwood.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Resolution to be reported To morrow.

Orders of the Day — APPELLATE JURISDICTION [SALARIES AND PENSIONS].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the appointment of two additional members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and of one additional Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, and in connection therewith to authorise the charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of—

(1) yearly salaries not exceeding two thousand pounds to be paid (in addition to such sum, if any, not exceeding two thousand pounds in the case of any person, as may be provided out of the revenues of India by way of increase of salary) to each of the two persons so to be appointed as members of the Judicial Committee of the
1630
Privy Council and of yearly pensions not exceeding one thousand pounds to he granted to persons so appointed; and
(2) a yearly salary to he paid to the person so to he appointed as an additional Lord of Appeal in Ordinary not exceeding in amount the yearly salary now payable to a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and of yearly pensions to be granted to persons so appointed not exceeding in the case of any person the amount of the yearly pension which may now he granted to a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary:
(b) to repeal section thirty of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, and section four of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1887"—(King's recommendation signified).—[The Attorney-General.]

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): It will be remembered that at the end of last Session there was a Bill which, owing to want of time, was not proceeded with, although it had been three times introduced in another place and three times brought to this House. It was a Bill for reinforcing the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council, and it will be perhaps sufficient if I remind the Committee quite shortly of the present position. The present position of the Privy Council with respect to Indian appeals is that there is only one member who can be said to have any real intimate experience of the administration of justice in India, but it has been the practice until recently for there to be two members who have been more or less at one time or another associated with the administration of justice in that country. Of recent years the number of appeals from India has increased so substantially as to make it necessary that the Judicial Committee shall sit in two divisions. Otherwise, the appeals from the other parts of the Empire would be blocked by the consideration of those from India. The circumstances have caused so much anxiety that in three successive Sessions a Bill was introduced in another place in order to enable two men of intimate and recent experience in the administration of justice in India to be appointed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The terms, on which the present Indian member of the Judicial Committee sits, were fixed by the Judicial Committee Act of 1833. He receives under that Act a sum which can hardly be described as salary but which was described by the Act as intended to be an indemnity in respect of the expenses incurred by him. If there are two members, as there may be under that Act, they each receive the sum of £400 by way of expenses. When there is, as at present, only one member, that member receives the sum of £800, being the total of the two sums of £400. It is obvious to anybody acquainted with the work of the Judicial Committee that nobody is going to sacrifice his time or, as so often happens, his time and his health and possibly a career in India for the purpose of earning the very meagre sum which the members of the Judicial Committee who represent Indian experience under the Judicial Committee Act of 1833 are allowed. In those circumstances, it was decided in 1926 that it was desirable to alter the salary and to secure men with a more intimate and more recent experience of India.
The Bill which was introduced in another place had the ardent support of
Lord Haldane who described the existing provision for members of the Judicial Committee in respect of Indian appeals as so scanty as to cause great inconvenience. It is a fact of some pathos that Lord Cave, who was then Lord Chancellor, speaking upon the same Bill, mentioned the fact that Lord Haldane himself was one of those who supplemented the scanty ranks of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council without regard to considerations relating to his own health. One can but think that Lord Haldane, who devoted himself so much to the work of the Judicial Committee as well as to the judicial work of the House of Lords, did indeed shorten his life and his opportunity of service in consequence of the scanty provision, as he himself described it, for hearing the appeals before the Judicial Committee.
We all remember the position which the Judicial Committee occupies in the Empire. It is a great court. Nobody, even though he is ready to criticise the arrangements of the Judicial Committee, can but fail to recognise that. It not merely redresses personal wrongs and establishes the rights of individuals throughout the Empire, but it interprets constitutions and maintains the justice of the law in the furthest parts of our great Empire. The appeals come, not merely from India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but from Palestine and from such parts of our Empire as West Africa. I believe I am right in saying that from every single quarter of the Empire there come proofs of the confidence which subjects of the Empire have in this Judicial Tribunal.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it the case or not that India., which according to the Bill has to contribute £2,000 a year, has refused to do so?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. Member will be good enough to wait until I come to that point in clue course, I will tell him the facts. The Financial Resolution, which I am submitting, proposes that, in order to remedy this state of affairs, there shall be two additional members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They are to be paid a sum which, so far as this Committee is concerned, amounts to £2,000 to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. With regard to the rest of the emoluments, they
will be provided out of Indian revenues under a vote which has been approved in the Indian Legislature to that effect. It is, therefore, contemplated that they shall receive a salary of £4,000, payable as to half out of the revenues of the Imperial Exchequer and as to the other half out of the Indian revenues. It is provided also by the Motion that they shall be paid a pension of £1,000. That pension will be payable, so far as this Committee is concerned, out of the Consolidated Fund. If other arrangements are made, as may be suggested but of which I have no information, they will be paid out of the Indian revenues. But hon. Members may rest assured that, whether there is any arrangements or not, the extent of the pension payable out of the Consolidated Fund will only be £1,000. That is the substance of the proposal contained in this Motion so far as the additional members of the Judicial Committee are concerned.
It will be recognised that it is proper and usual that this Tribunal, important as it is, should not sit except when there are five members present to hear an appeal. It is possible, of course, to hear appeals when there are only three members present, but the invariable practice has been, except when man-power was absolutely lacking, that each division of the Judicial Committee should consist of five members of that Committee. In order, therefore, to provide for the hearing of the appeals from India as well as from other parts of the Empire, it is absolutely essential that these two additional members shall be appointed. They will for the time being be in addition to the one member representing India who, as I have stated, receives £800 for his services but in time, when that member retires, these two additional members will be regarded as taking his place.
The real object of this part of the resolution is to reinforce the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by securing from India men who have that personal and up to date experience of Indian customs and law which is so essential to enable a fair and just decision to be given in regard to disputes from India.
The other part of the proposal is that an additional Lord of Appeal shall be
appointed to enable the House of Lords to continue the hearing of cases from England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I should like the Committee to understand the present position in regard to the man power available for both these tribunals. It is desirable that each tribunal should consist of five persons. If there be two divisions of the Judicial Committee sitting at the same time as the House of Lords there must therefore be 15 persons sitting. In 1927 Lord Haldane recognised that there was not a sufficient number of qualified men to man the tribunal, and he proposed to provide an additional Lord of Appeal to supplement the services of those who were available. May I call attention to the number available in 1927, remembering that at least 15 persons are required. The Lord Chancellor with six Lords of Appeal made seven members. There were four volunteers—Lord Wrenbury, Lord Phillimore, Lord Darling, and Lord Warrington—all of whom have had a very long judicial experience and have earned the comparative repose to which they became entitled, but all of whom, have given the most ungrudging and willing service in the House of Lords and on the Judicial Committee.
In addition to those 11 persons there were three Privy Councillors who were ready to sit on the Judicial Committee. They were Lord Salvesen, Lord Sinha and Sir Lancelot Sanderson, making 14 persons. If two new members had been appointed in 1927 that would have made 16 persons to man these three tribunals. That is taking no account of absences on account of illness and the absences which may be expected in the case of persona who have reached the age of 80. There were also three ex-Lord Chancellors which brought the number up to 19. But even 19 does not provide a sufficient margin to provide three tribunals. Let us notice what is the position at the present time. What is the position now? There is the Lord Chancellor and only one ex-Lord Chancellor, Lord Buckmaster, who performs judicial duties, because Lord Haldane is no longer with us to the sorrow of us all. Lord Finlay after a career known to everybody cannot be expected at 86 years of age to continue to give further service on the Tribunal in the House of Lords.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Lord Finlay still sits in the House of Lords.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Lord Finlay has not sat in the House of Lords for some time and it is unlikely that he will sit there again. He is a member of the Permanent Court of International. Justice but no hon. Member can expect a man of that age to continue to give the services which he has given to the country for so long. There are there six Lords of Appeal. As for the volunteers, Lord Wrenbury and Lord Phillimore, although they still enjoy the fullest measure of intellectual agility which they have always exhibited in the course of their efficient public service, are aged 82 years respectively. Lord Darling and Lord Warrington are available from time to time, but not unnaturally they desire according to their private convenience to enjoy the repose to which they are entitled but which they are willing to interrupt in order to give volunteer services on this Tribunal.
Unhappily Lord Sinha is not now living, and Lord Salvesen and Sir Lancelot Sanderson are volunteers. Therefore, even if you add the two members of the Privy Council whom we propose to appoint to sit on the Judicial Committee, that will only make 14 persons to man three tribunals which require at least 15 persons if they are to be manned efficiently. In these circumstances, it seems sailing as near the wind as we can to ask the Committee to provide the necessary money for only one additional Law Lord. We shall then have only 15 persons, even if all the volunteers come to the rescue who are reasonably able, to man the tribunal. In those circumstances it has been decided to supplement the Bill that was introduced in 1926, 1927 and 1928 by providing that the salary necessary for an additional Lord of Appeal, who will receive the same figure as the other, that is, £6,000 and a pension of £3,750 to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The Bill will be introduced in due course if the Committee gives the necessary authority for the salaries I have mentioned. I commend this proposal to the Committee because nobody can suppose that it is wise, in the interests either of the country or of litigants, to starve our judicial tribunals. At the present time
they are working on a margin of manpower which makes it almost impossible for the Lord Chancellor to make such arrangements as will adequately provide for the administration of that justice which everybody believes to be necessary.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I have had opportunities of carefully considering all the data on which the case put forward by the Attorney-General is founded, and I have come to the conclusion that in every particular what he has told the Committee is accurate. That being so, it seems to me that it is absolutely necessary, if these tribunals are to be properly manned and do their business, that the extra appointment for which financial authority is now asked should be made. Many hon. Members on this side have consistently supported for several years the proposal for strengthening the Judicial Committee. Speaking for myself, I was very disappointed that the Government did not see their way last year or even the year before, through the exigencies of time, to put this matter through.
As the Attorney-General has said in speaking so kindly of my late leader, Lord Haldane did as much as any other man in the country to strengthen the work of the Judicial Committee and the Privy Council, and he was always of the opinion that the Privy Council needed strengthening. The plan before us is one to appoint a new Law Lord, and what the Attorney-General has said is that as things are we are very largely dependent for the manning of these two bodies on the work of ex-Lord Chancellors. That is a very proper thing which we all appreciate, and which arises from the fact that under a Statute of William IV, every Lord Chancellor is paid a pension of £5,000 a year, and very properly has always felt that that pension is paid really, though not actually in law, for the consideration of services in the Judicial Committee. The Government are now proposing the appointment of an extra Law Lord at a cost of £6,000 a year. The Attorney-General has pointed out that of those who are left Lord Finlay is no longer able to serve. I feel sure that I shall be voicing the feelings of a good many members of this Committee and the taxpayers if before we definitely agree to this proposal—and I think we ought to
agree to it—I ask the Attorney-General one question. There is one ex-Lord Chancellor, Lord Birkenhead, who is riot, I understand, serving in a judicial capacity. He, therefore, does not give that consideration which we all think fit and proper in an ex-Lord Chancellor who takes advantage of the Statute and draws the £5,000 a year. If, as I hope to hear from the Attorney-General, Lord Birkenhead, holds the view, which all other ex-Lord Chancellors have held, that he is not really morally entitled to draw this £5,000 a year if he does not perform judicial work, and if we could he informed that Lord Birkenhead will not draw the £5,000 a year, as we hope he will not in the circumstances, the amount to be voted would become considerably less, and we shall only be voting actually £6,000 a year for the extra Law Lord. On the other hand, if the State is going to pay £5,000 a year to any ex-Lord Chancellor who does not so serve, we shall be burdened in fact with a cost of £11,000 a year, and shall get no consideration from that particular person. I have no doubt that the Attorney-General will he able to assure us that Lord Birkenhead is going to follow the excellent example of his predecessors and decline to draw this pension when he is not doing judicial work; but we on this side, and I am not sure that I am not speaking for some on the other side, would like to know quite definitely on this matter, aye or no.
Apart from that, as I have said, the case which the Attorney-General has made out seems to me to be unanswerable. He omitted, however, to say one thing. I understand that, owing to the shortage of Law Lords and members of the Privy Council in the earlier part of this year, the House of Lords was actually unable to hear appeals at a time when it otherwise would have, and appellants in the House of Lords were actually unable to come before that body after, I think, last June, although normally, if the two bodies had been sufficiently staffed, appeals would have been heard right on until the Long Vacation. Appellants, therefore, are being kept out of their decisions because the tribunal is insufficiently equipped, and there can be no case for opposition to this Resolution. The Attorney-General seems to me to have entirely made out
his case, and, so far as I and my Leader are concerned; we shall offer no opposition at all.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Perhaps I may answer at once the question which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put to me, but at the same time I do not want to admit that such a question is really germane to the much bigger question whether the Judicial Committee and the House of Lords are properly manned. I cannot conceive that this Committee would fall into such a grievous error as to refuse to provide the service for which we ask, because someone might take advantage of something to which he was entitled by law.

Sir H. SLESSER: The learned Attorney-General will, of course, appreciate that I make no such suggestion; I shall support the Resolution.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I thought it right to say so much, because I conceive that it would be an unhappy practice if the House of Commons were to complicate questions of great general importance by personal questions such as this is. The hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to inform me that it was possible that this point might be raised, and I have, therefore, been in communication with my Noble Friend, and have asked him a question, which he, of course, was perfectly free to decline to answer if he thought fit. He has, however, authorised me to say this, that in the course of time he will be undertaking new duties—new employments—and will receive in connection with them emoluments which will be substantial. He proposes to receive the pension to which he is entitled during the period of transition from his old duties to his new duties, and he anticipates that the period during which he will receive the pension will not be at all prolonged.
At the same time, he makes that statement without derogating in any way from the right of his successors, which he does not want to prejudice or affect, in any way at all, to draw the pension to which they will he entitled by law. I believe I am right in saying that my Noble Friend takes the view—and, so far as my authority carries any weight
with the Committee, I respectfully think that the view is right—that these pensions are awarded, not for services presently performed, but as a reward for services already performed; and, indeed, it would be strange if an ex-Lord Chancellor receiving the sum of £5,000 a year were to be expected to sit as a matter of obligation in a tribunal over which, as an ex-Lord Chancellor, he would often preside, with a number of other Law Lords who were in fact receiving £6,000 as salary. The disparity shows that the £5,000 is not intended to be a salary for services performed in the House of Lords or in the Judicial Committee, but is, as my noble Friend says, and as constitutional authorities have always stated, a reward for past services. That statement having been made out of courtesy to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that his advice to the Committee will be accepted, and that we may be allowed to receive this service of public money for the purpose of manning the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee.

Mr. TINKER: May I ask for what length of time these gentlemen will have to serve before they get their pensions? In two cases the pension will be;.(l1,000, and in one case £3,750. For what period will they have to serve before they get that?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If anyone becomes an ex-Lord Chancellor, he becomes entitled to the pension on vacating his office.

Mr. TINKER: in the first case he is not an ex-Lord Chancellor.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Did not the hon. Gentleman's question relate to the pension of an ex-Lord Chancellor?

Mr. TINKER: No; I was asking whether the two gentlemen who are to be appointed, and who will be entitled each to a pension of £1,000 and the Law Lord who will get £3,750 will have to serve before they get those pensions.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: So far as the Financial Resolution is concerned, no time is provided during which a judge will have to serve. It depends, of course, upon the age at which he is appointed to serve. In the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the
pension is proposed to be granted at the age of 72, and it is quite obvious that, as the intention is to appoint men in the full vigour of life, a man will not be appointed a member of the Judicial Committee for this purpose a year or two before he becomes entitled to his pension. The persons appointed will no doubt be expected to serve, and will be required to serve, if they are going to earn their pension, up to the age of 72.

Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: I would like to take this opportunity of pointing out that the proposal of the Attorney-General falls far short of the views expressed by successive Lord Chancellors as to what constitutes an adequate supreme tribunal of the Empire, namely, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. For many years past counsel and litigants from the Dominions and Colonies have expressed their views to successive Law Officers and Lord Chancellors and other judicial persons, to the effect that the present position is, and the position for years past has been, something approaching a scandal, to use the word used by the late Lord Haldane about a year ago, speaking in another place. The proposal of the Attorney-General goes some way to remedy the present unfortunate state of affairs, but it does not go far enough. I am precluded by the Rules of the House from moving to increase the Vote, but I do regret that His Majesty's Government, every member of which stands for a united Empire and for a strong supreme tribunal of that Empire, should not see their way clear to introduce a Measure which I believe would appeal to all quarters of the House. So far as I know, no Member of the House—and I have canvassed many—has any objection to the strengthening of this tribunal. As it stands now, it is impossible to be certain of getting five men of eminent judicial standing to take respectively the three divisions into which this great Court is naturally divided. You are dependent upon some men who are so aged that it appears to be difficult for them to see or to hear the counsel who appear before them. I am reflecting the view of counsel from the Dominion of Canada when I say—

Sir H. SLESSER: On a point of Order. Is it in order to say that a
learned Judge of this realm is so blind or deaf that he cannot see or hear counsel?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Of course, I make no personal reference to any judicial person. If I have said something which oversteps the boundaries of courtesy, I withdraw at once. I would put it in this way. Many of these eminent jurists have earned, and long since earned, their pensions and their reward, and it is not fair to counsel and litigants who come thousands of miles from all parts of our Empire that they should have to appear before men who, however eminent in their prime, no longer make that impression upon the litigants or counsel before them which every one of us would like a Judge to make. I have no desire for a moment to reflect upon any Judge, but I am stating what is sincerely felt by men who come to this country, and I am speaking this evening in order to point out that the proposals of the Attorney-General and the Government do not remedy this state of things.
The state of things, even with this reinforcement, will be worse than it was a year ago, because we have had during the past year an unhappy casualty list among some of the most eminent members of the Judicial Committee. This reinforcement will not make up to the fullest extent the casualties that unhappily have occurred. I would say one other thing as to the actual Resolution that is before us. I am all in favour of the appointment of a new Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. I would appoint several more, and I think it is a calamity that the Government cannot take greater courage, and make, as I think they would successfully make, an appeal to all parties in the House to put this Court once and for all beyond the criticism of anyone in regard to numbers and in regard to its judicial strength. The proposal before the Committee makes, for the first time in our history, a distinction in the appointment and payment of Judges. The two persons of judicial standing to be appointed in connection with India are to be paid, as to half their salary, by a Vote of this House, and as to the other half by a possible Vote of the Indian Legislature—

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): An actual vote.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: An actual Vote passed annually by an Indian legislature. I think I am right. My point is this. It has hitherto always been the rule to put the salaries of judges on the Consolidated Fund. The appointment is made by the King, advised, of course, by the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General. Now, however, a judge of the Judicial Committee is made dependent for half his salary on the vote of an Indian legislature, a body the decisions of which, or the members of which, might come before him as litigants or as representatives in some issue. I think that that is a most unfortunate suggestion.

Earl WINTERTON: My hon. and learned Friend is really mistaken about this matter. There is no question of any annual Vote of the Indian Legislature. The Indian Legislature have agreed to this sum being paid; that is all.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is a different thing from putting the Vote on the Consolidated Fund. My point is that the money should all come from the Consolidated Fund voted by the House of Commons. I hope I make myself clear. My point is that. it is not right that, for the first time in our history, in the case of men occupying these posts in the Judicial Committee, one-half of their salaries should be dependent on the Consolidated Fund, which, of course will be unalterable, and the other half dependent, I think I am right in saying, on an Indian legislature.
My second point on that is this. These new judicial members receive a salary of £4,000 for doing work which is exactly the same as that done by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, who receive £6,000 with a pension. I think there again it is an unfair discrimination to pay men doing practically the same duties different salaries. I know those men may not sit in the House of Lords. I know they do not rank as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. My point is that the Government are ill-advised to appoint members of the Judicial Committee with different salaries, of different status, and with the sources of their salaries different.
There is another point. You appoint two new members from India,. That is an odious discrimination against the rest of the Empire. This is an Imperial tribunal, the only one, and the case could have been met if the Government would simply have added, if they wished to restrict the number to three, three Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, keeping of course the appointment in their own hands and the payment on the Consolidated Fund. As the plan stands now, I very much regret that they have broken an old tradition. I think they have weakened the prestige of the Judicial Committee, and all for the sake of saving £8,000 to the taxpayers of the country. I do not think this sacrifice of the prestige of the Judicial Committee is worth while. I regret that the Government has not taken this opportunity to strengthen the greatest link of Empire next to the Crown itself, and has brought in a Measure which does not reflect the views of any ex-Lord Chancellors or of any leading jurist in any part of the Empire.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I want to ask the Attorney-General to make a little plainer the case of the pension of the ex-Secretary of State for India. I understand my hon. and learned Friend below me (Sir H. Slesser) pointed out that the need for these new judges was partly due to the fact that ex-Lord Chancellors might have been available but were not intending to give service, and that gave rise to the question whether the ex-Secretary of State for India was intending to perform judicial services or not. I understand, in the first place, that the ex-Secretary of State for India does not intend to perform any services of this kind. That being so, it is strange that he should say he is protecting the rights of his successors.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I did not say the Noble Lord was protecting the rights of his successors. What I said was that he wanted to have it quite plain that in abandoning, as he proposes, his right to draw the pension he is not to be understood as derogating at all from any rights of his successors. That is a very different position from saying
he is taking a course of action in order to protect the rights of his successors.

Mr. BENN: It is a very important point, but it is more a matter of wording than of intention. In any case the intention of the Noble Lord was that no action of his should derogate from the propriety of a future Lord Chancellor drawing his pension. If anything is calculated to jeopardise the rights of a future Lord Chancellor to draw his pension it is for a precedent to be set up by which the Lord Chancellor draws his pension and does not perform the ordinary judicial service which it has been the invariable practice of ex-Lord Chancellors to perform.
The second point is by way of question. Here is a transition period. The ex-Secretary of State for India, having been a Lord Chancellor in time past, and having now ceased to be Secretary of State for India, and his salary as Secretary of State having therefore ceased, proposes in his quality of ex-Lord Chancellor to draw his pension as ex-Lord Chancellor for a transition period. What is this transition period? It is not for services on the Bench. We do not know how long it is to be drawn. We have not the least idea. It is apparently to be until he has secured some quid pro quo for his commercial services. He is already director of three large industrial concerns. Will the Attorney-General tell us exactly how many of these directorships are to be accumulated by the ex-Secretary of State before the transition period comes to an end? Then supposing his commercial ventures come to nothing, what is the Noble Lord's intension about coming back and saying. "It may have escaped your notice, but I was Lord Chancellor some years ago and I should, therefore, like again to enjoy the pension to which Lord Chancellors are entitled." It is extremely important, in view of the very frank way in which the ex-Secretary of State has dealt with his own finances and explained everything, that we should have a definite answer to these two questions.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think hon. Gentleman is getting a little beyond the terms of the Motion. The question of whether an ex-Lord Chancellor is going to exercise judicial duties
or not is one thing, but the question of the Lord Chancellor's pension is not one that can be discussed generally on this Motion.

Mr. BENN: I accept your ruling, Sir, and I will put my question in another form. For how long is the ex-Secretary of State going to fail to perform his judicial duties, and is he intending later to come forward in the event of other things failing and offer to perform judicial duties? I think those questions will be in order.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not wish to appear to show any discourtesy to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but his questions really are irrelevant, and I do not think he really expects me to be able to answer them. One of his questions actually was as to what would happen if my Noble Friend wishes, if the time ever comes, to abandon the occupation which he has lately undertaken. That is a hypothetical question requiring a gift of prophecy which I do not possess. The other question is how long what he calls the transition period is going to last? That again is a question which I cannot answer. I have already said, merely repeating the words of my Noble Friend, that it is a period which he does not expect to be of a prolonged nature.

Mr. BENN: Is it till he gets 30 stamps?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member has asked me a question which I am endeavouring to answer out of courtesy to him.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Could an ex-Lord Chancellor who has given up his claim to this pension of £5,000 reclaim it at any later period?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There have been cases where that has been done.

Captain O 'CONNOR: As I was successful enough to elude the Ruling of your predecessor, Sir, last year so far as to speak for a moment or so about strengthening the Privy Council, I want to reinforce what I said then on this topic and to regret that the Government have not taken their courage in both hands and attempted a much more radical strengthening of the Privy Council and of the House of Lords
appellate tribunal than they have found it possible to do. With much of what the hon. Baronet below me (Sir H. Greenwood) said I am in entire agreement. In the Judicial Committee we have possibly the most illustrious tribunal that has ever been known in history. There is something so spectacular and romantic about that tribunal, its power is so clear and its possibilities so extensive that it seems to me we are failing in our duty if we fail to recognise the opportunity that exists of strengthening it and so cementing the whole bonds of Empire. The only parallel tribunal that occurs to one's mind is that of the Prize Court during the War, when belligerents and neutral nations all over the world were content to lay their case before the Prize Tribunal, and if we are to maintain that ascendancy of the Privy Council which in the real interests of Empire it is desirable that we should maintain, we cannot do it by patching it up with an additional man here and there and in the parsimonious manner in which we have dealt with it to-day. It is manifest that the Attorney-General has understated his case. The mere recital of those advantages ought to be enough to convince not only us, but the young and growing Dominions that something must be done to put that tribunal into something more nearly in accord with the views of the younger parts of the Empire. For these reasons I hope the matter will not be left here, that we shall pass this Resolution without any dissentients at all, but that the Government will recognise that it has only begun upon a task which we hone it will continue to attempt to achieve.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I wish in a sentence to press upon the Government the desirability of taking a little larger view of the functions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I think it very likely that the average layman does not appreciate the full value and significance of the Court. As the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir H. Greenwood) said, next to the Crown, it is really one of the greatest links in the Empire. On all hands tributes are being paid to the impartiality and the great value of the services it renders. On behalf of my hon. Friends and myself I should like to say that, while I believe much more could be done than
is being done by this Resolution in supporting the Committee, yet we desire to support this particular strengthening that is now proposed in the hope that it will add still more luster to that body.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. THURTLE: The Attorney-General said just now that he was not able to define the transition period which Lord Birkenhead laid down during which he would draw his pension of £5,000 attaching to the office of ex-Lord Chancellor. In view of that fact, may I take this opportunity in saying from my place in the Committee that there will be very keen disappointment on the part of the tax-paying public if, in view of Lord Birkenhead's many activities, this transition period extends beyond a period of a very few weeks.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I want to say only a few words from the point of view, not of a lawyer but of a layman. It would be almost indecent, I am afraid, for a mere layman to intervene in a Debate which has so far been sustained with such brilliance by lawyers, but I think, perhaps, it is permissible for one who has taken some interest in the work of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from the point of view of the maintenance of our inter-Imperial relations to say a few words in a very courteous form on the Motion which is proposed to the Committee. An hon. Friend below me spoke of the work of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as spectacular. That is the very last word which I should like to use, for I never knew any more striking contrast in my life than that between the dingy surroundings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the apparently complete absence of formality in their proceedings and the enormously important work which, as a matter of fact, they are called upon to perform. I imagine that no Member of this House, and that no party in this House, can for one instant doubt that in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council we have an institution of the very highest importance to the Empire as a whole. Anyone who as a layman strayed into the Judicial Committee cannot fail to have been impressed not by the spectacular but by the importance of the work which they are called upon to perform. From
the layman's point of view may I, therefore, add my single word in cordial support of this Resolution?

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — WESTERN HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (TRANSPORT SERVICES) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It will be within the recollection of the House that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General made a contract with Messrs. David MacBrayne in May of last year seeking for a period of five years to carry out certain services for transportation between the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and giving a subsidy of £36,000 for that purpose. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland brought this contract before the House according to the rules of Parliament, he unfortunately, and to his surprise, encountered a good deal of opposition and a good deal of criticism and eventually—I need not go over the whole of the Debate—it was referred to a Committee of this House for consideration and report. A few days after that was done, Messrs. MacBrayne, owing to the criticisms, I believe, which had been levelled at them—however, this does not very much matter at the moment—said they did not wish to go on with the contract, but that in order to avoid disorganisation of communications they would be prepared to continue on the same terms as they were working under until 31st October. They have been carrying on the service up to the 31st of last month.
Then the Select Committee found themselves in rather a difficult position. They issued statements to the Press that they would be prepared to consider any offers that were made to them for carrying on this service, and asked for tenders. Unfortunately no adequate response came. As time was getting on they then—I think very wisely—thought of approaching the great railway companies and some of the steamship companies, and they wrote to the London, Midland and Scottish
Railway Company, to the London and North-Eastern Railway Company and to the Coast Lines and asking them if they could see their way to make some proposals. Eventually, after many negotiations, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway and the Coast Lines Company put up two alternative propositions to the Committee which were similar in most respects, but differed somewhat in their financial aspect. The Committee, having duly considered them, in their report stated:
They do not feel competent to indicate a definite preference for either of these schemes.
In fact, they left it to the Government to decide which of the two schemes which were very similar, should be adopted. One of these propositions which was I common to both schemes was that a new company should he formed to acquire the business. That company was formed last month under the title of David MacBrayne (1928) and they have under a temporary arrangement with the Government been carrying on the service since the 1st of this month. This company have done what the Committee said should he done, taken over the assets and goodwill of the old MacBrayne company. This company came into existence as I said some time last month. I think I ought to read to the House a paragraph which appeared on page 3 of the Report of the Select Committee stating the views of Sir Josiah Stamp as to the way in which legislation should be carried through, and that will explain why the Government are bringing in this Bill and why the Bill has not been brought in as a Private Bill. The Committee say:
It became clear to your Committee quite early in this discussion that the London and North Eastern Railway Company would not be willing to enter into any form of joint undertaking in which they were not completely guaranteed against loss. Sir Josiah Stamp, on the other hand, while he made it clear that the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company would not look on the undertaking as a promising or profitable commercial enterprise, but rather as one into which they would only enter on grounds of public necessity with considerable reluctance, stated on behalf of his Company that they would be willing to submit proposals for undertaking the steamship services in the West Highlands and Islands jointly with Coast Lines, Limited, upon one indispensable condition. This condition was that they should be relieved of all expense involved in any legislation neces-
sary to give them requisite powers to invest money in a shipping company, of all need for diplomatic negotiations in securing the necessary passage of any Bill through Parliament, and of all responsibility in the defence of such a Bill against criticisms. Sir Josiah Stamp, both in his memoranda and in his evidence, repeatedly pointed out that, in assuming a service about which at present there was great criticism, he was exposing his Railway Company to opposition from a wholly new and probably fertile field to any Bill that they brought before Parliament for any purpose. His company, as he plainly said, would not proceed with any scheme which involved their promoting a private Bill, with all its attendant expenses and harassments, on their own account. He also said with considerable emphasis that no scheme would be satisfactory which did not as tar as possible combine the chief existing interests which serve the locality both on sea and land;—
I think that that seems to be common sense.
and both Sir Alfred Read and he made it clear that no new undertaking had any prospect of success which did not take over the whole stock, assets and goodwill of Messrs. MacBrayne"—
which has been done.
After a full discussion, and on the assumption that some way would he found by which the railway company or companies would be relieved by the Government of all expense and responsibility in promoting the necessary legislation, two schemes, on a certain basis common to both, were submitted jointly by Sir Josiah Stamp and Sir Alfred Read.
That explains why, having accepted the recommendations of the Committee, and the Committee having adopted the scheme put forward by the London Midland and Scottish Railway and the Coast Lines jointly, it is the Government's work to promote the Bill and not that of a private company. The Bill itself—no doubt hon. Members have it before them—is a very short one. The operative Clause says:
If there is incorporated, whether before or after the passing of this Act, a company having for its principal objects the provision of mail cargo and passenger services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland"—
That has been done; it was done last month
and the acquisition of the assets of any company which prior to such incorporation provided such services"—
Those have been acquired by the company
it shall be lawful for the Minister of Transport, after consultation with the Secretary of State, by order, to authorise any railway company therein specified to hold shares, stock or debentures in or of any such company so incorporated to such amount as may be specified in the order, and on any such order being made, the railway company so authorised may, notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment, subscribe for, take and hold such shares, stock, or debentures to such amount as aforesaid, and may, with the assent of the Minister of Transport and of such company, provide in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland any such services as aforesaid, by sea, air or land.
On that may I say that it is quite a new thing in a Bill of this sort for provision to he made for the railway company to provide air services subject to the assent of the Minister after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland and with the assent of the Company. I do not see why after the great advance in transportation which has now taken place we should not put in this so that we can eventually establish air services if they are commercially necessary and economic: and so the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company shall be able to provide that means of transportation for these people.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does that mean that these services are to be in the hands of this Company or in the hands of the Government?

Colonel ASHLEY: The railway company may with the assent of the Minister of Transport and of such company provide in the Western Highlands and Islands any such services as aforesaid by sea, air or land. This appears at the foot of the first page of the Bill, and there the hon. Member's point is answered. It would be convenient if I deal very briefly with the contract. The Secretary of State for Scotland will answer criticisms later.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Would it not be more convenient to dispose of this Bill first, and discuss the contract subsequently?

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I suggest that we should dispose of the Bill first? I think that would be much better in the interests of all concerned.

Colonel ASHLEY: I am prepared to fall in with the wishes of the House. I
thought we might have dealt with the whole subject in one Debate, but if the sense of the House is the other way we are only too willing to meet their wishes. I do not think there is anything more to say on the Bill, except that the Government are carrying out the wishes of the Select Committee which was set up to deal with this matter.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: No.

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member can criticise that statement, later. We are carrying out the suggestions of the Select Committee and I therefore submit the Bill, with confidence, to the House.

Mr. JOHNSTON: No hon. Member on this side of the House will desire to obstruct this Bill in any way. It is an essential part of the contract and a consequence of the contract. I therefore agree with the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Machpherson) that the whole business would be much more appropriately discussed upon the contract and upon the Amendments which have been handed in to certain portions of the contract. First of all, we should get the Bill out of the way. Therefore, on behalf of those who sit on this side of the House I heartily agree with this Bill and hope that it will have a speedy passage.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: I have listened carefully to what has been said, and particularly to the conditions laid down by Sir Josiah Stamp. I want to make a few observations on the Bill itself, but I hope that nothing that I say will delay by one day the proposed improvement in transport in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland. In my view, the old company of David MacBrayne showed much public spirit in acting as they did in offering to carry on until we were able to make other arrangements. Equally, I think that Sir Josiah Stamp and his directors have shown great public spirit in undertaking what they have already undertaken. This Bill will enable the railway company to participate in the provision of mail, cargo and passenger services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Two conditions are laid down, both of which are contained in the first paragraph of the Bill. These conditions are:
If there is incorporated, whether before or after the passing of this Act, a company having for its principal objects the provision of mail cargo and passenger services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and the acquisition of the assets of any company which prior to such incorporation provided such services …
I take no exception to these two conditions in so far as this contract is concerned, but I want to look ahead 10 years, when this contract will come up for renewal. What will be the position then? If the service has been carried out efficiently, no harm will have been done, but it may be that the service will not have been carried out efficiently and many of those concerned may have been thoroughly dissatisfied with the service. What then? Let us imagine that another railway company, 10 years hence, by co-operation with another shipping company, desires to tender to the Government for this service. Perhaps I should make it quite clear now that there can be no successful competition against the subsidised service, but there may be competition for the subsidised service. Let us examine the position 10 years hence, when this question may arise. Two conditions have been laid down. The first one states that it must be the principal object of the company to provide these mail, cargo and passenger services. We can conceive of some big company 10 years hence who might undertake these services efficiently and effectively but whose principal object would not be these services. Are they ruled out? More important still, any would-be competitor must acquire, according to this Bill,
the assets of any company which prior to such incorporation provided such services.
Does that mean that there can be no successor to this new company unless that would-be successor is able to buy the assets of the existing company? Does it mean that the existing contractor can stand by and say: "Yes, but if you want to compete for this contract you must buy my assets"? I need not explain to this House the strong position of an unwilling seller. There is no basis here for purchase. Does it mean that the sitting contractor can charge any price he likes for his assets, knowing that he can have no competition until the other party buys his assets? I hope the Government will make some reply to this question, which is one of great importance. I do not
think that can have been the intention of the Government. If they can satisfy me on that point, I will not force a Division; I would shrink from that, for I frankly admit that this Bill and the contract will give some improvement in the transport service, but I think the Government ought to consider what may happen 10 years hence.

Sir BASIL PETO: I should like to raise one point which has been already alluded to by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I was not quite satisfied with the answer which was given to him. I have no objection to an air service, but I would like to know whether it is to be definitely set up that a railway company can be authorised by this Bill, provided it has the consent of the company referred to in the second line of Sub-section (1) and of the Ministry of Transport, to convey mails and cargo, if it comes to that, by air as part of the ordinary carrying out of the obligations of a railway company That seems to be rather a strange departure in a small Bill dealing with communications in the Highlands and Islands.

Colonel ASHLEY: This only refers to services by air in that particular area which the MacBrayne Company might themselves provide if they thought fit, subject to Government assent.

Sir B. PETO: Only last year we gave special leave to railway companies to travel on the roads on terms of equality with all other organisations of road transport, and I think we should discuss such a grave proposition as the provision of an air service by a railway company on a totally different occasion to the present Bill. Is it the policy of the Minister of Transport to make it part of the duties and obligations of railway companies not only to travel on the roads, which are provided largely by public funds, but also to use the air in competition with other organisations as well?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not wish to oppose this Bill. On the contrary, I want to do all I can to assist the Government if they are prepared to open up the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. MacKenzie Livingstone) talk in the way he did, because
he is the one man in this House who has opposed this concession and is in favour of MacBrayne.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: On a point of Order. When an hon. Member hears a statement which is definitely and completely untrue regarding his views, has he any immediate redress?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): That is not a point of Order at all. That is a question of fact.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I think the Government are losing a glorious opportunity by handing over the opening up the Highlands and Islands of Scotland to a private company. It was an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate to all and sundry that they are in earnest in their desire to repair the terrible havoc that has been going on in these depopulated areas. When this matter was first discussed in this House, it was said that Messrs. MacBrayne were doing a great thing, and it has been said this afternoon that they have conferred a great boon on the Highlands and Islands in agreeing to continue their service until this new company is in operation. It is no good saying that. MacBrayne could have gone out of existence at any time. The British Navy is there; we have more ships than all the ships of Messrs. MacBrayne and could carry on the transport in these areas more effectively by the Navy until these other ships are brought into the service. I did ask the Minister of Transport whether he was not going a wee bit too far in this Bill and was taking advantage of our anxiety to get something done for these areas.
I do not want to say harsh things about the Minister of Transport, but here we have an Englishman bringing in a Bill which has to do with Scotland. I think the Minister of Transport has taken advantage of our anxiety in regard to transport in the Highlands and has added something to the Bill. There is a new departure, an unprecedented departure, for it is proposed to give to a railway company control of the air. Railway companies already have control over the waterways and canals and the ferries. They are getting control of the roads, and now the Minister of Transport says they are to have control of the air. I
think that is going too far. Why should we have this new proposal in a Bill which we hope is going to benefit the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; an area which produces a hardy and intelligent race, who are being driven across the seas by thousands every year. Here was an opportunity of opening up the country and make it possible to retain them at home, keep them on the land; make it possible for them to cultivate the soil and get a return from it which would keep body and soul together. We are anxious to do that, and because the Government see our anxiety, and because we have been able to carry the British public with us—and the British public are watching the actions of this Tory Government—

Mr. BUCHANAN: They take some watching.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yes, they take some watching; but the result of recent by-elections shows that the British public are watching them—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see how the hon. Member can connect this with a Bill enabling a railway company to participate in the provision of mail, cargo and passenger services in the Highlands of Scotland.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will try and show you. The Government have added something to this Bill which has never been in a Bill before. They are giving control over an element to a private company. This House has never given the control of the air to a private company, and I am trying to explain to the House what, I think, is the idea of the Government in proposing it. They have taken advantage of our anxiety, but the British public are now on our side and are realising that the people in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland have never had a dog's chance. The only time the Highlanders came into the picture was when you wanted them to fight your battles, and now when you have a chance of showing up this company MacBrayne, who have bled the Highlands white, robbed the Highlands and practically forced thousands of them to go across the sea to Canada and elsewhere in order to seek their fortunes, and allow the Government to get control of this important matter of transport, we get this new pro-
posal in this Bill. It must be remembered that transport as regards the Highlands of Scotland is essential for their development.
Cheap transport was never so easy to obtain as it is at the moment, and the Government ought to have taken advantage of this opportunity and do something in the way of cheap transport for the Highlands of Scotland without giving it away to a private company, no matter how much better it may be than MacBrayne. This company is going into the Western Highlands of Scotland, not with a view of developing that area, but in order to make profit out of the transaction. Do not tell met that this is a philanthropic institution. Never once have they demonstrated that they were prepared to make any sacrifice to develop the country. Time and time again they have exploited their valuable concession. Therefore, I hope that before the Bill passes the House will do all that is possible to tie up the company so that it shall not exploit the Highlanders of Scotland any longer.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I rise to support the Second Reading of the Bill. I am not going to deal with the controversy that has arisen between the last speaker and my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Livingstone), except to say that I am sure it is within the recollection of the House that few people have been more energetic in their desire to improve the transport of the Western Isles, and while on occasion he has condemned the MacBrayne contracts, there has been no one who has argued more successfully the desirability of more ships to give a more efficient service among the islands of the West Coast. I am not sure that the last speaker is right in his view that this new company is out to exploit the Western Islands. I know from the experience in that part of the world in the past that we have now reached a stage when we are careful of any new company entering that sphere, and it will be the duty of this House to see that there is no exploitation of any kind by any new company in the way suggested by the hon. Member, who represents Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood).
The House of Commons is to be congratulated on the fact that the railway company in this case really came to the
rescue, and although I have no very great love for joint stock companies, I think that the London Midland and Scottish Company are really deserving of the thanks of this House, and particularly of the Scottish Office, for coming forward and willingly doing their best to get that part of Scotland out of a very serious difficulty. Consequently I welcome their intervention, and I hope that their taking over of these very important duties will be a very great success indeed. While I say that as a Member for one of the divisions of Scotland more directly concerned, I hope that I shall still continue the vigilance which Scottish Members have shown in the past so far as transport facilities and difficulties on the West Coast of Scotland are concerned.
I welcome the coming in of a great railway company of this kind for two reasons. I think that the residents in that part of the world will now have a guarantee, not only of greater efficiency, but that the steamers can he run in unison with the railways. You will not now find yourself landed on the mainland in the early morning, from Stornoway or Skye or any of the other islands, two hours after the first morning train has gone. That was an intolerable condition of things. If we give a Second Reading to the Bill and establish the company in the way suggested by the Bill, we shall have a guarantee that in future there will always he a connection between the steamboat and the railway train, and that will be of enormous advantage to the people in the Western parts of Scotland and the islands.
There is one other matter which comes directly from the powers given in this Bill. I hope the Government will see to, it that there is a through connection from the boat to the train, right to the journey's end, and a through freight for goods and commodities carried by this new steamer service. Take a case in point. I have in my constituency a place called Applecross, on the west coast of Ross-shire. I find that there are very different freights from Glasgow to Kyle and from Kyle to Applecross, a distance of about 15 miles. The freight for the short distance is infinitely greater than that for the much longer distance between Glasgow and Kyle. The advent of the railway company which is guaranteed by this Bill will, I hope, remedy
that sort of thing. We owe a debt of gratitude to the company for coming forward at great risk to relieve not only the Government, but that part of the country, from a very great difficulty.

Mr. SHINWELL: I cannot let this occasion pass without expressing my dissent from the proposals contained in the Clause of the Bill now under discussion. It seems to me that this would have been a favourable moment for the Government to have transformed the existing shipping service into one of a public character. This service can hardly be regarded as complicated. The number of vessels required is small, the service itself is not complex, and the commodities that require to be transported are easily handled. In the circumstances the Government might have experimented with a State-owned service. It was said in the House, when the matter was previously under review, that to convert this service into a public service would be to introduce what is regarded as the pernicious principle of political interference. As to that I have only to say that in the contract which we are about to discuss and the progress of which I have no desire to arrest, there are conditions expressly stipulated in respect of the means of conducting these operations, and these make it essential for us from time to time to interfere politically. If I may anticipate, without transgressing the Rules—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not know whether the hon. Member is arguing that the Government rather than the railway company should control, or contribute to the control of this service.

Mr. SHINWELL: That is precisely my point. I have no desire to enter into the details of the contract. I am rather discussing the general principle. I was about to point out—and I think you will find that I am not transgressing the rules is doing so—that conditions are laid down in respect of the method of conducting the service, and that those conditions entail, the duty on Members of this House who are interested, of inviting the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland and his friends from time to time to matters arising from the conduct of the service. That is political interference. In some measure it
amounts to political control, so that you do not escape the dilemma—if it be a dilemma—of political interference by refusing to transform the existing service into a strictly public service. Therefore, I think that argument must go by the board.
On the whole, I am bound to say that I feel disappointed that this essentially simple service however important it may be—and it is important—should be left in the hands of a semi-public utility undertaking which, in spite of what has been said regarding exploitation by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), does, in a measure, continue to exploit since a margin of profit is provided. I am open to correction, but I understand that if a margin of profit is provided for, there is exploitation. True it is limited; nevertheless, the exploitation remains. I do not pretend for a moment that anything that my friends and I may say at this stage will induce the Government to change its mind. This Government rarely changes its mind, and is less liable to do so on this occasion than on any other, but I think it is desirable to express our views regarding the proper method of conducting this important service.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I desire to say only a few words on behalf of the Scottish Office in connection with this Bill. I wish to support what has been said on all sides of the House to the effect that this Bill is the outcome of a great deal of labour and consideration on the part of the Select Committee. They went into the problem with great thoroughness, and they have been able to bring to the solution of the problem, not only a shipping company with a record which is well known to all those who follow the work of great shipping organisations, but they have also been able to induce one of the great railway companies to take a share in trying to improve this service. It is, of course, apparent that the co-operation of the railway service and the sea service, if carried out in the spirit in which this Measure is intended, must be of material advantage to those who are to be served, and I hope that the House will give its approval to the Bill and will give a fair and reasonable opportunity to those who enter into these undertakings to show
that they mean to carry out those under-takings for the best advantage of the community in which we are all interested.

Mr. HARDIE: I agree that there has been a great deal of work and trouble in getting to the point which we have reached but I hold that the rightful claims of the islanders are not being met, even by this Bill. Last summer I visited some of these islands and got first-hand information. The claim of the islanders is sound and honest. They claim that as they pay taxes like other people, they ought to have their produce carried at the same rates as the people on the main-land. That is the only basis on which you can bring a sense of equality to the islanders. It is no use saying that trans-port costs more in their case. If our nation is made up of islands and main-land and if all the inhabitants are citizens alike, they should all be treated alike in the matter of these essential services. My regret is that the Government did not seize this most delightful opportunity of showing what a Government could do for its people in these conditions. This Bill, as I say, will not meet the islanders' claim that their produce should be moved at the same rate per mile as that which obtains on the mainland. In that way a handicap is placed on the islanders and the Government have lost a magnificent opportunity of showing the meaning of real government in this matter.

Orders of the Day — WESTERN HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That the Contract, dated the 16th day of November, 1928, between His Majesty's Government and David MacBrayne (1928), Limited, For the maintenance of transport services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and for the conveyance of mails in connection with the said services, be approved."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Colonel ASHLEY: As hon. Members have received copies of the contract, it is not necessary that I should say much, but I should like to point out the main items, as I see them, in this con-
tract. The first is that more money is to be devoted to these services than was intended in the contract of last May. Then, the subsidy was fixed at £36,000 a year. Under this contract, when the full sum of £250,000 capital has been put into the business, £50,000 a year will be paid as subsidy instead of £36,000 a year. At first, the whole of that £50,000 a year will not be paid. As long as the amount of capital employed is less than £250,000 10 per cent., of the difference between £250,000 and the actual capital that exists, is to be deducted from the £50,000.
Having said that and pointed out that undoubtedly more money is being found from the taxes in order to carry on this service, I should like to impress upon the House that the advantage to these areas is infinitely greater than under the old contract of last May. In the first place, the contract is for 10 years instead of five years, so that at any rate you have your certainty of a contract and of an improved service going on for 10 instead of five years; and it will go on until either party gives the other notice in writing of, I think six months to terminate the contract.
So far as the new vessels are concerned, it is infinitely better, because four new vessels will be built within a period of two years instead of three is five years as provided under the old contract. I am sure the House will see that that is a very considerable improvement from the point of view of the Western Islands. As far as the transportation itself is concerned, the House will recollect that the old contract simply said that there should be a reduction of 12½ per cent. on goods and produce brought from the islands to the mainland and that there was going to be no reduction on produce from the mainland to the islands, but under the present contract you will get an average reduction of 10 per cent., which is calculated at £17,000, on goods and passengers, whether they go to the islands from the mainland or from the islands to the mainland, and that is a very considerable improvement. Then you have the linking up of railway and steamship services which will obviously come about, as the London, Midland and Scottish Company will have a direct interest in maintaining proper connections between steamboat and train services. I think
they would propose to have through rail and steam rates for both goods and passengers.
There are two other points that I want to make. The first is that if the Minister insists on new services, then, of course, the company or the railway companies insist, and quite rightly from their point of view, that they should be guaranteed against any loss that might occur; and the Government, in order to protect its interest, has the right to nominate one director on the board. I think that is all that I need say at the moment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I suggest that on the first Amendment which has been handed in we might have a general discussion on the whole contract and, if we so desire, have our division afterwards? The first Amendment is one dealing with the question of whether there shall be one or two State directors upon the Board. May I say that I agree with every word that has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) as to the opportunity that was missed in not inaugurating a State sea service and—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has made a suggestion which is technically contrary to the rules of the House. I understand he suggests that he should move the first Amendment on the Paper and that the whole contract should be then discussed, and then, if he so wishes, that the other Amendments should be moved and divisions taken upon them, but no further discussion. I see no objection to that, if it suits the convenience of the House, but I must put it to the House informally, and if no one objects we will proceed on that assumption.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in line 5, at the end, to add the words:
subject to the modification that in paragraph 2 for the words 'a person' there shall be substituted the words two persons.'
9.0 p.m.
I was observing that, in my opinion, an opportunity has been missed of not inaugurating a State sea service, and indeed, on the occasion when the last MacBrayne contract was before the House, I had the honour of moving that the recom-
mendations of the last Select Committee which sat on this subject should be given effect to in this House. However, that is not the view of the majority of the Members of this House. On the Select Committee, which considered the matter de novo, we were presided over by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson), and I should like, on behalf not only of hon. Members who agreed with me on that Committee, but, I am sure, of all the Members of the Committee, to express our appreciation of the enthusiasm, the earnestness, and the ability with which he fulfilled his duties. The Minister of Transport has very briefly contrasted the two contracts, the contract which was before this House and which was turned down by the unanimous feeling of the House, and the contract which we are now discussing. Under the last contract we had to pay £36,000 a year, but under this contract we have to pay £50,000 a year when, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the maximum amount of capital, £250,000, is put into the business, but only then.
That is £14,000 more per annum that the State will be paying towards this sea service, and what do we get for it? We are getting, not 12½ per cent, reduction in freights inward, which was excluding cattle, whiskey, and some other commodities; under this contract, we are getting an immediate reduction of 10 per cent. on all commodities, both inward and outward, which is a very considerable difference. But there is one exception to that which I am very sorry to see in the contract, and which was not in the minds of the Committee when we were discussing the contract upstairs. I invite the Secretary of State for Scotland to explain why this exception is in the contract. There is to be no 10 per cent. reduction upon traffic, as I understand it, from the Highlands and islands, inward or outward, to the Clyde ports and to the loch ports off the Firth of Clyde. I cannot see the slightest justification for that exception. Where is the route upon which we most want to develop traffic? Is it not between the great port of Glasgow and the port of Greenock to the outer islands? Yet by the limitation put in the contract here, there is to be no reduction of 10 per cent., inward or outward, between those Clyde ports and the islands.
Then the dividend to which this new corporation is limited is 6 per cent. Four new steamers are to be built at once, and they are to be built in the Clyde, as against two new steamers which were to be built under the previous contract, with possibly a third if there were a renewal of the contract at the end of five years; so that we get a considerable advantage in new shipping. Then we are to have inspection of the books and accounts—a very valuable addition. A fair wages clause has been inserted in the contract, and we are to get one Government director on the board of the new corporation. This is again where we fall foul of the Government. It was the express proposal of Sir Josiah Stamp before the Committee, and it was expressly agreed to by all the members of the Committee—and I hope that I am expressing the views of every member of the Committee when I say that when their Report left them, every member believed that the State was to have two representatives upon the new board. We find now that these two representatives have been cut down to one, and we should like to know the reason why. We have another very valuable proviso that half the profits over 6 per cent. are to be put in a contingent liability fund, and when the fund rises to £12,500, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Government will step forward and demand a reduction in fares and rates. In other words, we have the nearest thing to a public utility corporation that we are likely to get out of the present Government. I have here for the purposes of the Debate the only official definition of which I know of a public utility corporation. It is in the Finance Act of 1920, Section 52, where a public utility company is defined as
a company which carries on wholly in the United Kingdom any gas, water, electricity, tramway, hydraulic power, dock, canal, or railway undertaking, and which by, or by virtue of, any Act is precluded either from charging any higher price, or from distributing any higher rate of dividend than that authorised by, or by virtue of, the Act.
Within the limits of that definition we are now to include for the first time a sea service, and let us hope, even with the limitations which the Government have imposed upon this new Corporation, that the Highlands of Scotland will receive a very material advantage, and
that the possibility of economic developments are opened up before the Highlands.
I should refer to one or two points because they are dealt with in the Amendments. In the contract it is specified that only three-quarters of the crew shall be British. We see no reason why the whole 100 per cent. should not be British. We have been told over and over again that the excuse for putting such a proviso in shipping contracts is that ships go through the Red Sea and hot climates, and that it is necessary to have Lascars. You do not want any Lascars in the Western Highlands, and I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman should have put in this proviso.

Mr. COUPER: Does the hon. Gentleman object to natives of the South of Ireland being employed on the boats?

Mr. JOHNSTON: "Keep your ain fish guts for your ain sea maws." I am proposing that, when we have so many unemployed sailors, engineers and dock hands of our own, we might at least provide them with employment before we give it to other people.

Mr. COUPER: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that many of the firemen who have served on these boats, and in the service which we are discussing, are of Irish origin?

Mr. JOHNSTON: If the point of the hon. Gentleman is that they should be British subjects, that will suit me, I suppose everybody from a British Colony is a British subject.

Mr. COUPER: That would include an East Indian.

Mr. JOHNSTON: We need not quarrel about that, but under the contract you may employ Germans, Belgians, Portuguese, and anybody you choose, and I am only asking that the limiting proviso should be taken out of the contract. If the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Couper) cares to vote against that, he will have an opportunity later on. I should like to ask in regard to Clause 11 whether the right hon. Gentleman has got any further with the London and North Eastern Railway Company that they will link in the fullest possible way with Mallaig and elsewhere. It is not
in the terms of the contract, and we ought to know whether that company are in full agreement with this new proposal. In Clause 21 providing for a limitation on the reduction of 10 per cent., places on the Firth of Clyde and the lochs opening therefrom are excluded. Why is that part of the traffic excluded from the reduction of 10 per cent.? We know, for example, that Loch Goilhead was one of the very places which the Argyll County Council specially mentioned in their list of grievances with regard to the extraordinary freight charges that are now being levied by the MacBrayne Company, and if the traffic to Loch Goilhead is not to be subject to the 10 per cent. reduction of freights, there will be very considerable dissatisfaction at Loch Goilhead and in other parts of the Highlands. The Government will thus, by this senseless limitation cramp and stultify the beneficent provisions in other parts of the contract.
We hope that every step will be taken henceforth to develop trade and commerce between the Ports of Glasgow and Greenock and the Western Highlands. We hope that through this contract a modicum of prosperity will come to the Western Highlands, but if the introduction of these zones and limitations means that these reductions are not to apply here and not to apply there, we shall go right back to the bad old system of the MacBrayne company. On page 13 of the Schedule the right hon. Gentleman has set forth the type of new boat which it is proposed to lay down. On the Stornoway service it is proposed to provide a boat having a speed of not less than 12 knots in moderately had weather and with a length of 175 feet. Since this news got abroad there has been a perfect deluge of telegraphic and other protests from the outer Islands. It is held that the steamer should be capable of at least 14 knots, and that its length should be about 250 feet in order to allow of proper passenger accommodation being provided. Sir Josiah Stamp impressed every member of the Committee with his anxiety to do his utmost to develop this traffic, and now that we are opening up a new era, why should we provide only small-sized boats for this rough Atlantic journey? Why not start the new development on a more efficient scale?
I should like to hear the view of the right hon. Gentleman on the unanimous recommendation of the Committee that the piers should be taken over by the County Councils and maintained out of the Road Fund. Why not? As an hon. Member behind me has already pointed out, this is the Islanders' road, this is the road to the Isles, and the people there have as much right to a free highway for their traffic as have the inhabitants of the mainland, have as much right to decent transport facilities as have the people who travel between London and Edinburgh or Edinburgh and Manchester. This is the road to the Isles, and why should the piers, which are a part of the road, be left derelict? In some cases they have been allowed to fall into decay, and are in a highly dangerous condition. They ought to be taken over by the public authorities and maintained out of public funds, as the roads are maintained. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that all the members of the Committee—and the majority of them sit on his own side of the House—were unanimously of opinion that in the interests of the Highland and Islands these piers ought to be taken over by a public authority and maintained out of the Road Fund, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us satisfactory assurances on that point.
I would like to say this one thing more. We know that about £100,000,000 a year is spent in Switzerland on tourist traffic by the Americans, Britishers and many other peoples who go there. We have a climate in the West Highlands which is drier than the climate in the Isle of Wight; the rainfall is smaller than in the Isle of Wight. We have at least as healthy a climate as there is in Switzerland and we have as beautiful scenery as there is in Switzerland, but this part of Scotland is unknown to the people of our own land. There have never been facilities for them to go to see it, nor was there accommodation for them there if they had gone. I hope to-night will mark the beginning of a new development, and that this new public utility company will do for the West Highlands what the Canadian Pacific Railway have done in Canada, and what has been done in Switzerland and in other European lands. I hope they will erect working-class hostels and open holiday resorts. I
do not ask for huge costly buildings with gargoyles and useless ornamentation, but I want them to provide cheap holiday facilities for the people, so that these new steamer services, linked up with the railway services may gradually produce an era of prosperity such as the High-lands have not known for a century or more. If the Government take that view then these small, limiting paragraphs ought to be taken out of the contract, taken out by agreement with everybody concerned; and I hope the House will show, as it did when the MacBrayne contract was before us, that, irrespective of party prejudices or of past policy, it will unite to take a step towards promoting prosperity in the Highlands and Islands. Under this scheme you are doing more to provide employment for our people than all you have done by your transfer boards and all the rest of it. With these new steamers we can open up tourist traffic and can re-populate these beautiful Highlands and Islands—but only if we take out these limiting paragraphs, only if we provide facilities for cheap transport, only if we take over and maintain the piers; and it is because I believe all these things that I, with my friends, have tabled four Amendments, which I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept.

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I will take this opportunity of developing the points I put on the Second Reading of the Bill. As I said then, you cannot claim that you are doing anything much for the Islanders unless you put them under the same conditions as the people on the mainland. I spent two weeks on the Island of Tiree, and while there had communication with the neighbouring Island of Coll. One day the boat which arrived at Tiree brought two baskets of tomatoes—small baskets—punnets we call them. The lady for whom they were brought had a little shop up at the top of the road. When I saw her go into the shop with the baskets I followed, because I felt I would like some tomatoes. I said "Might I have some of those tomatoes?" She said "Yon can have some tomatoes, but I want to tell you something. You cannot buy them here as you buy them elsewhere." I said "No, I did not expect
that." She said, "Do you believe that," and put down an invoice for 6s., 3s. for each of those two baskets, with about 3 lb. of tomatoes in each basket. She had had to pay 6s. carriage on two small baskets of tomatoes. She said, "Apart from my work in going down to the pier and bringing up these tomatoes and the rent f pay for this little shop, if I were to add nothing more than the cost of the carriage the local people would think I was trying to swindle them and that is why I place my railway carriage bill up on that window." There were also some apples there, and I asked if we could have some. She said, "Yes," but the same thing happened there. There was the carriage bill. If you added the price per pound and took the carriage per pound, you got the retail price. That meant that the apples were 1s. 3d. per pound. I am pleading for the rights of the islander to have his facilities on the same basis as the mainland people, who are able to buy commodities at the same price in Glasgow. That is the only possible way in which you can build up in the Highlands and Islands. It is the only way in which you can keep your population in those areas—by providing them with the very same facilities as the people have on the mainland.
That is why I say I am sorry the Government have missed this tremendous opportunity of showing what is really meant by government in any country, namely, to see that your people get fair play and justice. Take the Island of Tiree. It is perhaps one of the most beautiful islands of the lot. It used to be famous for rearing the famous Clydesdale horses. The Secretary of State for Scotland is a judge of that kind of horse, though I do not think that he is a very good judge of contracts. Take the land in that island, which I have examined myself. It is plain to see that that island gives great opportunities for becoming a source of wealth production. I discused it for over a week with the farmers and the men who know their business. You can only get your information at the fountain head, and that is why I went up there. This island could overcome all the things which they say prevents its development if it had the same facilities as the mainland. For instance, the structure of that island, geologically, is such that one end forms a basin and there is
the difficulty of drainage to the ordinary farmer. That gulf can be pierced at various points, and the accumulated water can be allowed to get to the sea. But there is a danger in that. An examination of the land shows that, if you cut this deep ditch and allow the water to get to the sea, you take away the very quality from that soil which makes it what it is. There is another way out, and that is a less expensive way than cutting through the strata to give a fall to the sea. It is by putting up windmills for controlling pumps. You do not require heavy capital expenditure with windmills because there is always plenty of wind to keep the mills going.

MR. SPEAKER: I understood that we were to have a fairly wide discussion, but I do not think it ought to include all these details about the merits of these islands to the extent to which the hon. Member is going.

Mr. HARDIE: I understood that the whole purpose was to try to improve the conditions of the Highlands in regard to trade, and especially to secure the re-population of these areas which have become depopulated through what I have described. These are the central facts. I am saying that these things might have been done and that the people on the islands ought to have the same advantages as those on the mainland. Even if you get all that is provided in the contract, you are still going to leave an essential part of what is necessary to build them up. You want in these Highlands and Islands to establish confidence to begin and build up, and you are not going to do that by simply dealing with this little part of the matter. That is why I am making the plea that, if it is possible to extend or to stretch things in any way in order to get over these difficulties then your shipping and transport arrangements will pay from the very first day when you begin to see that the islands are producing all that they will be able to produce. It seems to me that you have been putting the cart before the horse. The Islanders there are people who understand what is being said, even in English. There is no doubt in their minds at all as to where they are, what they are doing, and what is preventing their development. Do not make any
mistake about that, for they understand perfectly how it is that they have been kept back. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will do his best to extract more from the Government and will see that things are made as reasonable as possible, and that he will allow a stretching of every point that may lead to the repopulation of the Highlands and Islands.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I want to say just a word about this contract. It is different from the previous contracts, because it provides a spirit of public service. My hon. Friends opposite have said that they wish the State had taken the whole thing on. I objected to the former contract because the State just went far enough to make mischief by giving a large subsidy without any restrictions or control. The result was that all the evils of a State service were combined with all those of private enterprise, without the advantages of either. This contract meets all those points. You have the zeal, activity, and keenness of private enterprise with the necessary supervision of the State, which is giving a large subsidy, and you are combining the good of both cases. That is why I have so much hope for this contract.
I agree with the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) that it opens up a new future for the Highlands which ought to have been opened up long, long ago. I do not want to say anything unkind about the past because in the old days of the firm of MacBrayne they were largely actuated by a spirit of public service. They realised that you must to some extent satisfy your customers, and they had an honoured name in the Highlands. I think it was wise in this new concern to keep the old name, because of the considerable goodwill. I do not think the points raised by the hon. Member for Dundee are very serious breaches in the continuity of the agreement., nor do I believe that much harm would be done by having a couple of Government representatives. The Minister of Transport will be able to keep a careful supervision over the whole business. He has now got the right of getting hold of the books in order to see what profit is being made out of the contract, and I think that will pre-
vent any exploitation. As to what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwe11) alleged about any profit being exploitation, I think he was quite wrong on that point because a reasonable profit cannot be described as exploitation; only profiteering can be so described, and a reasonable profit is only business enterprise. It think it is only right that there should be a provision by which the books can be examined when the Government provide a subsidy.
It is quite true that this agreement looks as if something much larger was being given, but I feel quite satisfied that in a very short time very little snore than what was provided under the old subsidy will be required. If you take the average for eight years under the old company I think you will find the amount now proposed is about the same. As the contract is now drawn, I think it will be possible very soon to bring the subsidy down to the old figure. For, instead of being the fag-end of a system of transport, we shall, for the first time, get that system properly linked up with the railway company and backed by them. I feel satisfied that under the new contract the first thing the railway company will do will be to feed the traffic and attract people, and I am sure it will be fully realised that it will be much better to draw people to this part of the country than to attract them to the South and across the Channel. If this is done, any chance of loss to the Treasury will disappear. I think it is a wonderful thing to have achieved to have gat the greatest railway company in the country to co-operate in this project. I am pleased that Sir Josiah Stamp has entered upon this enterprise and has come to the rescue of a part of the country that badly needed his support. I think it is a very big thing to have got Sir Josiah Stamp into this business. There is much to be said for the view taken by the Scottish Office in the past that the railways would not help, but that has changed now, and you have in addition to the railway a part of the steamboat line under Lord Kylsant, who has the biggest shipping interest in the world, and I am satisfied that these great organisations and these two eminent men will make a thoroughly good job of this service.
The hon. Member for Dundee urged a reduction of 10 per cent, in the rates to Lochgoilhead. There is one place which is served by a little steamer which needs a much better service and this steamer is not always able to get there in stormy weather. I hope some improvement will be made there and I trust it will be possible to have some reduction in the freights. With regard to Stornoway I have received letters urging the necessity of having more speedy boats. On this matter I rely on the railway company and the steamboat company without the Scottish Office coining in at all, and I feel sure those two organisations will see that it is to their interest to provide speedier boats. Stornoway is one of the finest fishing ports in the world, and I am sure the railway company and the steamboat companies will see that it is a wise thing to give this port some better facilities than it has had up to the present. That is the minimum which is in the contract, but there is nothing to hinder these big companies from giving something much more than the generous provision which is made in the contract.
The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) referred to the outlying parts of the country and the urgent necessity of granting them better facilities for conveying their produce at something like the ordinary road rates. There are equalisation of rates tribunals in many parts of the Continent and America, and I think that is the principle on which this contract is founded. With regard to Lismore I understand that fertile island has no accommodation except a small motor boat. The steamboat company should be asked to make proper provision for the transport of goods to Lismore. I think the facilities offered by this contract will open up a new life in our transport system and it will be the means of a regeneration and a very great regeneration indeed.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said on behalf of the Port of Stornoway because Stornoway is the chief fishing port in Great Britain. I should very much like to join in the chorus of approval with which this contract has been received, but I find that I am quite unable to do so. I cannot give unqualified approval to the contemplated contract, and I shall
tell the House why. I must give the opinions of those people who know the matter best. The Town Council of Stornoway, a very enlightened body in a very enlightened town, ask for two things. They ask for speedy transport and a larger boat to cross the Minch, which is one of the most stormy channels round our coast. They also ask for something which is quite reasonable, and for which they have asked for many years, namely, a restoration of the early morning train connection to the South. They had that before the War, there is no reason why they should not have it now, and I hope it will be given to them. The Lewis District Committee of the Ross-shire, an equally enlightened body, have also asked for these two things. The Inverness-shire County Council, which is no mean body, recently appointed a transport committee, and the chairman of that transport committee is one of the most level-headed men in the Highlands. He is reputed to know more about the Highlands and Highland affairs than any other man, and I am certain that my friends on the other side will listen with respect to what he has to say.
The Chairman of that Committee is Lochiel, a man who is known personally and by repute to most of us here, and what does he ask? He says in effect that a 10 per cent. reduction in fares is of little or no use to them, and he speaks from actual knowledge. This man of great experience asks for a reduction, not of 10 per cent., but of 50 per cent., and nothing less will suffice. It is my duty to express my constituents' views on this matter. The people of Barra are thoroughly dissatisfied. The people of Benbecula are equally dissatisfied. The people of North and South Uist do not approve, and the people of Harris have expressed their strong disapproval. All these people are dissatisfied because the reductions in freights and passenger fares are insufficient. Will a reduction of 10 per cent, on a freight charge of 6s. for a small box of tomatoes save the Highlands? I would urge this upon the Secretary of State for Scotland. As he must know, transport is the life-blood of the Islands, and without improved transport the people cannot possibly survive. To the House generally I would say this: We have heard a great deal
about the road to the Isles. You may take it from me that the road to the Isles is still the road to romance, and I hope that every Member of this House will some day take that road.

Sir B. PETO: In taking part in this Debate, I shall not be able to contribute anything to the detailed analysis we have had of the potentialities of the Western Highlands and Islands, but I am interested in this contract from the point of view of the men who are going to carry on the new service. The Minister of Transport has immense powers in connection with it. He has to be consulted, and his agreement has to be obtained. I see that the contract provides for four new steamers, to be available within a period of two years. It also provides, as it should, for the usual Fair Wages Clause, and in Clause 7 it provides that each of the steamers shall be commanded by a skilful master. That is the point to which I desire to call the attention of the Minister.
Under the old MacBrayne service there was no superannuation at all for either masters or officers in these vessels. I was talking with Lord Kylsant only to-day, and he told me that 42 years ago in Scotland he saw one of the MacBrayne steamers, and he said that, while she seemed to be an extraordinarily seaworthy vessel, she looked very old. He was told that she was 40 years old, and he told me that she was still running. In other words, she is 82 years old. I am not, therefore, surprised when I am told, as I have been by the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, that in this old service the masters had no superannuation or pension, and that one of these masters, who was reputed to be over 80 years of age, had actually died at his post. Of course, it was very cheap and convenient to carry on the service without any pensions. I see that the proposal now is, and that in fact a contract has already been made, that Coast Lines, Limited, and their subsidiaries shall carry on temporarily this old service, which is now to be called MacBrayne, Limited. If it were limited to that, I should have no great anxiety with regard to pensions in the future, because no one has done more than Lord Kylsant to inaugurate pensions and widows' and orphans' schemes for officers
of the services with which he is connected and which he controls.
According to the Bill, however, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company is to participate. There is no limit to the amount of share capital that they may subscribe, and, as far as I can see, they may own the whole organisation. One of my hon. Friends says "No," but I can see nothing in the Bill to limit the amount of capital that they may subscribe, and it is apparently to be a railway-owned, or partly railway owned steamship service. The experience of the merchant marine in connection with railway-owned steamships is not particularly happy or satisfactory, and I think it is regrettable that in this contract, in which nearly everything seems to be provided for, not a word is said about any pension or superannuation scheme for the officers. Naturally, they are anxious to know, and they have asked me to put the point to the Minister, in view of the great powers that he has, and to ask him to see that at least a pension scheme equal to that of the present Coast Line ships is established, under which a master may retire on a pension of £100 a year at the age of 65, when this new service is inaugurated and these new steamships are put into commission.
The officers and their association, although they have tried their best, have not always had the most happy relations with the companies in the case of these railway-owned steamer services. They met the railway companies three years ago and agreed to a 2½ per cent. reduction in their pay, but, in connection with the Fleetwood-Belfast and Heysham-Belfast services, when they made representations asking that an officer whose services are not required in port should not be required to pay 21s. a week for meals that he never consumed, they never had any reply to those representations beyond an acknowledgment of their protest. Therefore, they naturally regard with some alarm this contract and this Bill, which wilt allow a railway company to own, or at any rate part-own, these steamers, and they want to know that they are going to receive somewhat better consideration than they have received in connection with the Belfast-Fleetwood, which is now the Belfast-Heysham, ser-
vice. I cannot expect that in this contract we can insert a Clause which will bind the new company to pay a reasonable pension and have a reasonable retiring age, but I ask the Minister if he will use the great powers he has and will see that these officers have reasonable pension rights under the new service and are not expected to go on commanding these ships as master, navigating these stormy seas and visiting these distant isles in the West, until they reach 80 without any pension on retirement at all.

Mr. SHINWELL: I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland can see his way to accede to the hon. Baronet's request. The practice of superannuation for the masters and officers of vessels is well known. I hope at the same time the right hon. Gentleman will be able to put in a word for the remainder of the crew. There seems to be no reason why a superannuation scheme should be provided for the master and officers and the crew should be completely excluded.

Sir B. PETO: Of course, the crew have their ordinary pension rights under the State scheme from which officers and masters would get nothing at all.

Mr. SHINWELL: In point of fact, the hon. Baronet is not strictly accurate, because some of the junior officers on MacBrayne's vessels and other coasting vessels are insurable and come under the ordinary insurance scheme. In any event it can hardly be said that the pensions provided under the ordinary insurance scheme are adequate for the purpose. The hon. Baronet agrees.

Sir B. PETO: No, I do not.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. SHINWELL: If he says a pension of 10s. a week is adequate I beg to offer a contrary opinion. But we are not here to discuss the merits of pension schemes, except to say there is no reason at all why the officers on the proposed new vessels should not be treated as the officers are treated in the major company, Coast Lines. We had a very interesting speech from the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten), in the course of which he expressed the view that a measure of State control was desirable. I was delighted to hear him say that, because it would appear that he has travelled a long way in our direc-
tion. There was a time when he would have been bitterly hostile to any such proposal. I take it that he will agree, having accepted that principle, that when a subsidy is provided for the mining industry, the Government responsible for the provision of the subsidy should exercise a measure of control. I hope on the next occasion when the Government suggests some form of financial relief he will indicate precisely the same view, and it might be mentioned when we are discussing these de-rating proposals. After all that is a form of subsidy, but, I cannot pursue that matter now. On the general principle I have a feeling of disappointment with the contract. It travels in our direction to some extent but it does not go far enough. It would have been much better to have a single scheme not hedged round by all sorts of conditions and stipulations, one which gave the Minister of Transport, the Secretary for Scotland and the Postmaster-General—because he is interested in a matter of this kind—complete control. As it is, they will act the part of policemen in connection with this contract. They will have to be constantly butting in so as to ensure that the contract is being properly carried out, that the mails are being adequately carried, that freights are not unduly high, that the services are adequate for the purpose and the like, and it would be much better in these circumstances, and in such circumstances as are bound to arise when this contract is in full operation, to exercise a full measure of control.
However, that cannot he dealt with now, because the House has already decided to accept the principle underlying the contract, but there are one or two points on which the right hon. Gentleman may be able to meet us. There is first of all the point raised by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) in respect of the composition of the crew. He asked that the crew should he composed entirely of British subjects. I will direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the members of the board of directors of the contractors must be British subjects. If it is desirable, as appears to he the case, that the contractors should be British subject, why should that principle
not be applied to all the members of the crew? I cannot understand why there should be any differentiation. The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Coupes) expressed the view that some difficulty might arise if the crew were confined to British nationality, but there is no difficulty whatever. Indeed MacBraynes have never employed other than British subjects. From my knowledge of the operations of MacBraynes, which extends over a period of 16 years, in close association with their shipping services, I dare say they have seldom employed any seamen other than Highlanders, but there is a possibility that men might be employed who are neither Highlanders, nor British subjects and something should be done to prevent that arising. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to alter this Clause so that British subjects only shall be employed on these vessels.
The only other point I wish to touch upon is in respect to the opening up of the Western Highlands. I speak now not so much of the cargo possibilities and the despatch of goods from Stornoway and the Outer isles to Glasgow and the mainland and from the mainland to the islands. It appears to me there is something much more important. If the tourist traffic is to be developed I would say to the right hon. Gentleman—and I assure him this is a point of real substance—that he will not attract tourist traffic unless he provides ample accommodation aboard these vessels for such a possibility.
We all know, at least those of us who have had some acquaintance with the MacBrayne vessels and with some of the smaller coastline vessels that they are hopelessly inadequate from the standpoint of tourist traffic. Tourists will not proceed on these vessels if there is any suitable alternative. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to include some clause or some provision or come to some understanding with the companies concerned so that the accommodation provided for tourists shall be of a most suitable character. Subject to these details, and to the expression once more of the general principle that it would be desirable to avoid a profit-making concern which is undoubtedly of an exploiting character, for as long as there is profit there is bound to be ex-
ploitation, I agree that the contract is on the whole, the best possible contract that we could obtain under the circumstances.

Mr. ROY WILSON: I should not have intervened to-night in this Debate had it not been for the extremely kind remarks which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) made in his opening speech about me as the Chairman of the Select Committee. I should like to assure him that I accept those remarks not for myself but for the whole of the Committee. We were engaged upon an extremely interesting problem, and I should like to bear my testimony to the whole of the Committee irrespective of party and to the way they threw themselves into the work at the very limited time at our disposal. I would like to say to the hon. Member for Dundee that I would personally be very glad if he did not press these four Amendments to a division, because it is quite obvious that this contract which is now before the House has to stand or fail as it is. The acceptance of any one of these Amendments would be impossible. Having said that, I do not want the House to think that personally I am not in favour of these four Amendments. I think that they are all quite reason-able, but I am quite satisfied in my own mind that the time has gone past when it would be possible or reasonable to put these Amendments into a new contract.
I should like to reinforce the appeal made by the hon. Member for Dundee to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to do what he possibly can to get the local authorities in Scotland to bring these piers and landing places under the local authorities, and to get such assistance as is possible from the Ministry of Transport. All of us on the Committee regarded that as very important. It does not in any way interfere with the company. It is a matter of arrangement between the departments. I hope that my right hon. Friend may see his way to give us that assurance that that will be done at some future date, and so round off, if I may use the expression, a contract which in my opinion is certainly a considerable advance on the old MacBrayne contract and which I hope and indeed believe will result ultimately in better conditions, and greater prosperity to those very
deserving people who live in these remote parts of Great Britain.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Perhaps it will be well that I should intervene at this moment. I would like to say that I think that what my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) said can be made clear by dealing with each of these Amendments as they are submitted. Those who were Members of the Committee will remember that in the first instance it was proposed that there should be three nominees of each of the companies and two of the Government. Since that time it has been stated by the companies that they did riot propose to nominate more than two directors each, making four instead of six, and for that reason the Government nominate only one. Let me say at once that there could, of course, under no circumstances be any question of a majority on the part of the Government. All that is really required for the safeguarding of the Government is that there should be a Government Director. I think that the smaller these bodies are kept the more efficient they are likely to be. There is nothing as I understand it to preclude an amicable arrangement at a future time if it should be felt that the board should be enlarged, and certainly if the companies agreed the Government would be within their rights in claiming another director. I hope that in view of that explanation and the added fact that the Government, in addition to having their representative, have access to the books and have the very fullest information as to everything that is being done, the House may feel assured that the interests of the taxpayers and public money are being adequately safeguarded.
I turn to the next point. That is that three-fourths of the crew should be British. I confess that I sympathise and feel that there is good ground for those of us who are interested in this to suppose that, at any rate, the great majority of these crews should be British. But I would remind the House that this problem of dealing with subsidies, and particularly with subsidies for mail contracts was the subject of an inquiry by a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1902, and that, after going into the whole problem, that Select Committee recommended that in all contracts which entailed public money these words
should be inserted. That is the reason why they are inserted now. But I have not the slightest doubt that the companies concerned will, as indeed in the past they have done, continue to employ only British subjects. With reference to the question of excluding places on the Firth of Clyde, this exclusion only concerns the waters within the Firth of Clyde and it does not include the question of the reduction of rates for goods brought from the outer isles into Glasgow or Greenock, or from Greenock to Glasgow to the outer isles. It was felt by the companies and by the Government that in the actual waters of the Clyde the conditions are entirely different and that with the circumstances of competition between the great varieties of companies who are serving the public within that area it was reasonable and fair, not only from the point of view of the arrangement which we are making with this company, but in fairness to the other companies within that area, that this should be left to the ordinary competition within the Clyde area.
I come now to the fourth Amendment, the demand that the boat should be "14 knots" instead of "12 knots," and "250 feet" instead of "175 feet." I can understand the anxiety of the people who are living in the outer Islands that they should have a boat of a good speed, seaworthy and able to meet all conditions of weather. It is the intention of the new company to build these four new ships, to provide ships of the most modern construction and with a sea speed which will be infinitely better than we have to-day, but I must point out to the House and to those who are asking for a boat of 14 knots speed instead of 12 knots that what they are asking for means an expenditure which would be extraordinarily high. In the circumstances, they must realise that they are being given a good service and improved boats, and I would ask that until they see these boats, they should withhold their criticism.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Will there be proper working connections between the railways and the steam boats? Will the early morning train connection with the Stornoway mail boat be restored?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not doubt that the new company, working as it will be closely in touch with the railways, will do everything in its power to improve the service connections. Not only the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, but the London and North Eastern Railway are really working together in this matter. The London and North Eastern Railway Company have stated that they give an assurance that they will cooperate with the new company and will maintain their services in connection with the steamers. That is of material importance, because a great part of the criticism in the past has been that that intimate connection and interworking has not been carried out. For the first time we have an assurance on the part of the new company and on the part of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway and the London and North Eastern Railway that they will work for a common purpose towards one end.
Not only are these reductions in rates being given both inward and outward, but provision is being made that if the service improves and warrants the things that are being said about it in this House and outside, and justifies the efforts of the new company, every two years there will be the possibility of a revision and a further reduction, if the service shows good results. Further, the Government are pledged under this contract to assist to improve and delevop the future services. I would ask the House to give a little time for these developments and that they must not either themselves be or encourage their constituents to be too premature in making fresh demands, until we see the developments of this genuine effort at co-operation and improvement. With regard to the question of staff, I do not doubt that so far as the Coast Lines are concerned, who are the main people dealing with this problem, they will do everything that they can to deal fairly and properly with it, but it would not be suitable to insert in the contract at this time any conditions such as have been suggested to-night.

Sir B. PETO: If the Government have a representative on the Board, could not the Government representative use what influence he has, although he is not in a majority, in favour of pension terms for officers?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no doubt that if and when an opportunity occurs these matters will be fairly considered. I want to say one word on the subject of the piers. Everyone who knows the conditions in the Western Isles is aware of the difficulties of this question, but this Contract is obviously not an occasion to deal with that matter. I agree that this is a problem which is still before us and for which we must find a solution. Frankly, I think the proper method would be for these piers to be taken over by the local authorities, but that again is a matter upon which a diversity of opinion exists. In some cases they have been taken over, and if eventually that is done, if circumstances permit us to take action in this direction, it may well be that they will come under the administration of the Minister of Transport, but I doubt if there is any possibility at the present time of any contribution being made to piers by the Minister of Transport. He makes a contribution for roads; he has the power now to give grants for roads giving access

to piers, if they are in the hands of the local authority.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What about the size of the ships?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The new ships will be a vast improvement on those that have gone before both in design and accommodation for all classes of passengers. I trust the House will be content with the difficult negotiations which have now gone on for a number of months and will ratify this contract.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. SHINWELL: I beg to move, in line 5, at the end, to add the words:
subject to the modification that in paragraph 7 the words 'at least three-fourths of' shall be omitted.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 241.

Division No. 8.]
AYES.
[10.24 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Hollins, A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, Walter
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shinwell, E.


Barnes, A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bellamy, A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert


Benn, Wedgwood
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bondfield, Margaret
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawson, John James
Stewart J. (St. Rollox)


Buchanan, G.
Lee, F.
Sullivan, Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Longbottom, A. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lowth, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Compton, Joseph
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Day, Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Duncan, C.
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
Mitchell. E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wellock, Wilfred


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
West wood, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hardle, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)



Heyday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hayes, John Henry
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Charles


Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John
Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ganzoni, Sir John
Oakley, T.


Albery, Irving James
Gates, Percy
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Apsley, Lord
Goff, Sir Park
Owen, Major G.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Pennefather, Sir John


Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J (Kent, Dover)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Perring, Sir William George


Atholl, Duchess of
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Pilcher, G.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Preston, William


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bethel, A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Raine, Sir Walter


Betterton, Henry B.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bevan, S. J.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hammersley, S. S.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Blundell, F. N.
Harland, A.
Remer, J. R.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanc., Stretford)


Brass, Captain W.
Haslam, Henry C.
Ropner, Major L.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Briggs, J. Harold
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rye, F. G.


Briscoe, Richard George
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Salmon, Major I.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hobler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Buchan, John
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Savery, S. S.


Burman, J. B.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Carver, Major W. H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Cassels, J. D.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Chapman, Sir S.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Shepperson, E. W.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Skelton, A. N.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Clayton, G. C.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smithers, Waldron


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colman, N. C. D.
Iveagh, Countess of
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cope, Major Sir William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Couper, J. B.
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lamb, J. Q.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Livingstone, A. M.
Streatfelld, Captain s. R.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Loder, J. de V.
Tasker, R. [...]


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lougher, Lewis
Templeton, W. P.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lumley, L. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Curzon, Captain viscount
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tomlinson, R. p.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Macintyre, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major A.
Waddington, R.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Warrender, Sir Victor


Drewe, C.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macquisten, F. A.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wells, S. R.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Ellis, R. G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


England, Colonel A.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Westan-s.-M.)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Meller, R. J.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fenby, T. D.
Monsell, Eyres Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Withers, John James


Fermoy, Lord
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wolmer, Viscount


Fielden, E. B.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Womersley, W J


Ford, Sir P. J.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Forrest, W.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph



Frece, Sir Walter de
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Nuttall, Ellis
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.


Galbraith, J. F. W.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: I beg to move, in line 5, at the end, to add the words:
subject to the modification that in paragraph 21, the words '(but excluding places on the Firth of Clyde and the lochs opening therefrom)' shall be omitted.

Mr. J. STEWART: I beg to second the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 250.

Division No. 9.]
AYES.
[10.33 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hirst, G. H.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hollins, A.
Sexton, James


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barnes, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shinwell, E.


Bellamy, A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sitch, Charles H.


Benn, Wedgwood
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bondfield, Margaret
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smllile, Robert


Bowerman, nt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromfield, William
Konworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Sullivan, Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Longbottom, A. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Harry
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Duncan, C.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N-)
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Greenall, T.
Murnin, H.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-la-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben



Hayday, Artnur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hayes, John Henry
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Buchan, John
Eden, Captain Anthony


Albery, Irving James
Burman, J. B.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Carver, Major W. H.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Cassels, J. D.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Apsley, Lord
Chapman, Sir S.
Ellis, R. G.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
England, Colonel A.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Christie, J. A.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Atholl, Duchess of
Clayton, G. C.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Falls, Sir Charles F.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Colman, N. C. D.
Fenby, T. D.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Fermoy, Lord


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cope, Major Sir William
Fielden, E. B.


Belfairs, Commander Carlyon
Couper, J. B.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Bethel, A.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Forrest, W.


Betterton, Henry B.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Bevan, S. J.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Frece, Sir Walter de


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Blundell, F. N.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Ganzonl, Sir John.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Gates, Percy


Brass, Captain W.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Briggs, J. Harold
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C


Briscoe, Richard George
Davies, Major-Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Goff, Sir Park


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Gower, Sir Robert


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Grant, Sir J. A.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Drewe, C.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Macquisten, F. A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Savery, S. S.


Hacking, Douglas H.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Hall, Lieut. Col. sir F. (Dulwich)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Margesson, Capt. D.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Hammersley, S. S.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.)


Harland, A.
Meller, R. J.
Skelton, A. N.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hartington, Marquess of
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Smithers, Waldron


Haslam, Henry C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hills, Major John Waller
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Nuttall, Ellis
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Oakley, T.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Oman, Sir Charles William c.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess or


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Tomlinson, R. P.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Owen, Major G.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Pennefather, Sir John
Waddington, R.


Hurd, Percy A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Perring, Sir William George
Warrender, Sir Victor


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Iveagh, Countess of
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Jones, Sir G. W.H. (Stoke New'gton)
Pilcher, G.
Wells, S. R.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Preston, William
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Raine, Sir Walter
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Lamb, J. O.
Rees, sir Beddos
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Livingstone, A. M.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Remer, J. R.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Loder, J. de V.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lougher, Lewis
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Robinson, Sir T. (Lane., Stretford)
Withers, John James


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman
Ropner, Major L.
Wolmer, Viscount


Lumley, L. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Womereley, W. J.


MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Rye, F. G.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Macintyre, I.
Salmon, Major I.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


McLean, Major A
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sandeman, N. Stewart
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. F. C, Thomson and Mr. Penny.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I beg to move, in line 5, at the end, to add the words:
subject to the modification that in the Second Schedule '14 knots' shall be substituted for '12 knots' and '250 feet' for '175 feet'.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 249.

Division No. 10.]
AYES.
[10.44 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Compton, Joseph
Grundy, T. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Cowan, O. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Dalton, Hugh
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Baker, Walter
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hardle, George D.


Barnes, A.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hayday, Arthur


Batey, Joseph
Day, Harry
Hirst, G. H.


Bellamy, A.
Dennison, R.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Benn, Wedgwood
Duncan, C.
Hollins, A.


Bondfield, Margaret
Dunnico, H.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Broad, F. A.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bromfield, William
Gibbins, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Bromley, J.
Gillett, George M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Greenall, T.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Buchanan, G.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kelly, W. T.


Cape, Thomas
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kennedy, T.


Charleton, H. C.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Kirkwood, D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Lansbury, George
Potts, John S
Taylor, R. A.


Lawson, John James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thurtle, Ernest


Lee, F.
Riley, Ben
Tinker, John Joseph


Livingstone, A. M.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Townend, A. E.


Longbottom, A. W.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Lowth, T.
Sakiatvala, Shapurji
Viant, S. P.


Lunn, William
Scurr, John
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sexton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Mackinder, W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wellock, Wilfred


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Westwood, J.


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Shinwell, E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sitch, Charles H.
Whiteley, W.


March, S.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Maxton, James
Smillie, Robert
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Mosley, Sir Oswald
Snell, Harry
Windsor, Walter


Murnin, H.
Stamford, T. W.
Wright, W.


Naylor, T. E.
Stephen, Campbell
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Oliver, George Harold
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)



Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sullivan, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Albery, Irving James
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hopkins, J. W W


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Dawson, Sir Philip
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Apsley, Lord
Drewe, C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Atholl, Duchess of
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hurd, Percy A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ellis, R. G.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
England, Colonel A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Iveagh, Countess of


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Falls, Sir Charles F.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Bethel, A.
Fenby, T. D.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Betterton, Henry B.
Fermoy, Lord
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Bevan, S. J.
Fielden, E. B.
Lamb, J. Q.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Blundell, F. N.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Loder, J. de V.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Forrest, W.
Lougher, Lewis


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh Vera


Brass, Captain W.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lumley, L. R.


Briggs, J. Harold
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Briscoe, Richard George
Galbraith, J. F. W.
MacIntyre, Ian


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ganzoni, Sir John
McLean, Major A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gates, Percy
Macmillan, Captain H.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macquisten, F. A.


Buchan, John
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Burman, J. B.
Goff, Sir Park
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Carver, Major W. H.
Gower, Sir Robert
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Cassels, J. D.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Margesson, Captain D.


Chapman, Sir S.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Christie, J. A.
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Meller, R. J.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Clarry, Reginald George
Hacking, Douglas H.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Clayton, G. C.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hammersley, S. S.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Conway, Sir W Martin
Harland, A.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Cope, Major Sir William
Harrison, G. J. C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Couper, J. B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Haslam, Henry C.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col- Arthur P.
Nuttall, Ellis


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Oakley, T.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hills, Major John Waller
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Owen, Major G.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pennefather, Sir John




Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Tomlinson, R. P.


Perring, Sir William George
Shaw, R. G (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Waddington, R.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Pilcher, G.
Shepperson, E. W.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Power, Sir John Cecil
Sinclair, Cot. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Preston, William
Skelton, A. N.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Price, Major C. W. M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, c.)
Wells, S. R.


Raine, Sir Walter
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Smithers, Waldron
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Remer, J. R.
spender-clay, colonel H.
Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Central)


Rhys, Hon. C. A. O.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Ropner, Major L.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rye, F. G.
Streattelld, Captain S. R.
Withers, John James


Salmon, Major I.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wolmer, Viscount


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tasker, R. Inigo.
Womersley, W. J.


Samuel, Samuel (W'deworth, Putney)
Templeton, W. P.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-



Savery, S. S.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Contract, dated the 16th day of November, 1928, between His Majesty's Government and David MacBrayne (1928), Limited, for the maintenance of transport services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and for the conveyance of mails in connection with the said services, be approved.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

REPORT [19TH NOVEMBER].

Resolutions reported:

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928.

Class VI.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade, including a Grant-in-Aid of the Imperial Institute."

Class II.

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Non-effective Services and Grants-in-Aid."

Class I.

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in
course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Government Chemist."

Class V.

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £559,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the payment of Old Age Pensions, for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith, and for Pensions under the Blind Persons Act, 1920."

Class I.

5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929,for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of Coinage, and the Expenses of the preparation of Medals, Dies for Postage and other Stamps, and His Majesty's Seals."

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Captain GARRO-JONES: Before the question is put, may I ask how far it is intended to go with these Votes to-night? I have no desire to obstruct the passage of the Report stage, hut I would like an assurance that no attempt will be made to slip through any portion of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill as I desire to make a few remarks on the first part of it.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): We shall make no attempt to get the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill to-night. We only want to get as far as we can with the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimates.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I had handed in a manuscript Amendment to reduce the Vote by £100. The intention of course was to draw attention to certain anomalies which I think account for some of the need for extra expenditure. First of all, I want to draw attention to the fact that in the case of a widow whose husband dies and who, owing to the shock of the death and the funeral arrangements, delays perhaps for a fortnight in making her claim, the money is allowed, not from the date of her husband's death, but only from the date of her claim. I think the unnecessary correspondence accounts for a large amount of this money. When a pension is allowed to a widow I think it should be given from the date when the husband leaves an insured occupation. I do not know what defence the Government offer for this administrative action. I have brought cases to the notice of the Minister of Health where, owing to ignorance of the law a poor woman has delayed her application for weeks quite innocently, and then she is mulcted in this money which she would have drawn if she had been properly advised. There is no justice in this kind of action, and the few hundreds or thousands of pounds which the State saves is bought at the cost of the mean treatment of these poor women.
My second case is that of a widow who has been left badly off and has had to seek parish relief. During the time the State is deciding to give her the pension the parish gives her relief and makes her repay it from the very little money which she receives when the pension is paid. This is a very big question and I hope I shall not he coerced by the Government Whips for stating this case. What
is the actual machinery which entities the Guardians to recover this money not from the woman herself but from the Minister of Health before the arrears are paid over? That is a matter upon which the House should be informed and obviously more clerical assistance is required for this procedure.
My third case is that of a widow who loses her son in the war and she gets a pension of 5s. When she afterwards gets the Old Age pension she loses the 5s. pension. We have had questions about this point in the House, but we have not got any satisfaction from the Minister of Pensions up to the present time. I know the Minister of Pensions is always sympathetic but he tells us that the matter is outside his department. We have another most important case where the widow is entitled to the 10s. pension and gets it and immediately by some machinery the Minister of Health informs the Minister of Pensions and the woman loses the few shillings previously granted to her.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Fifth Resolution to be considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS TRADE [GUARANTEES].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to amend the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 to 1926, by extending to the eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, the period within which new guarantees under those Acts may he given and by extending to the eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, the period during which guarantees given under those Acts may remain in force.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before we take this Resolution, I should like to say one word of protest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. We have been sitting for only a fortnight of the new Session, and now we are taking important financial business at this hour of the night. I hope it is not going to be the practice of this last
Session of the present Parliament for important financial proposals to be brought forward late at night. The growing loss of control by Parliament over public expenditure alarms all constitutional students, and as a Parliamentarian who upholds the Constitution, I desire to take this, the only opportunity I have, of protesting against the practice.

Mr. BENN: I remember, and we all remember, the time when it was not possible or competent for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to take this business after Eleven o'clock. Then a Committee sat, and said that they did not see why an important thing like the Report stage of a Money Resolution should be interrupted at Eleven o'clock. They said that, but the Government Whip, with a commendable desire to get everything done as quickly as possible, has made it a rule never to introduce this business before Eleven. That is going a good deal further than the Committee ever intended. A very remarkable statement was made by the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department in the Debate yesterday. We often say, and I have often said myself, that a certain amount of trade might be done with Russia, but the Government will not permit it to be done because of their political prejudices. I hear an hon. Member say that I am wrong, but that statement is made very frequently, and I will read to the House my basis for making that statement, which I shall repeat whenever I think it is germane. The Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, speaking about the possible extension of trade with Russia, said this:
There are, of course, political reasons, and I am not ashamed of political reasons;
and there are questions of policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1928; col. 1443, Vol. 222.]
That is to say, that, apart from the business end, which he proceeded to discuss, and on which there is some division of opinion, whatever the trade is with Russia, whether it be big or little, he admits the reason why we cannot do it, and why pro tanto, people must be unemployed. There are, of course, political reasons and questions of policy. I wanted to make that point clear, because it must be discussed up and down the country in reference to unemployment, and it is a very good thing that we have had so frank a statement from the Minister who is specially qualified to tell us about the policy of the Government in regard to this matter.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, Mr. A. M. Samuel, and Mr. Hacking.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS TRADE BILL,

"to extend the periods during which guarantees may respectively be given and remain in force under the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 to 1926," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock, o'Clock.